Griggs v. Bertram
This text of 420 A.2d 364 (Griggs v. Bertram) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The facts, essentially undisputed, appear in the published opinion of the trial judge, 163 N.J.Super. 87, 394 A.2d 174 (Law Div. 1978). We affirm.
No bad faith on the part of the settling parties appears, despite the unique nature of the arrangement. The disclaiming insurance company, appellant here, did not demonstrate that the settlement was unreasonable. Indeed, rather it asks us to impose on the settling parties the burden of proof with respect to the reasonableness of the settlement despite the fact of the company’s belated disclaimer. We decline thus to burden a disappointed insured with that which amounts to a presumption [503]*503of unreasonableness at the behest of an insurance company which voluntarily removed itself from the fray.
In the circumstances of this particular case we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Hamlin.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
420 A.2d 364, 175 N.J. Super. 501, 1980 N.J. Super. LEXIS 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griggs-v-bertram-njsuperctappdiv-1980.