Lischin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Lischin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.

253 A.2d 803, 54 N.J. 132, 1969 N.J. LEXIS 183

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJune 4, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 253 A.2d 803 (Lischin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lischin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 253 A.2d 803, 54 N.J. 132, 1969 N.J. LEXIS 183 (N.J. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We reverse, essentially for the reasons expressed by Judge Lewis in his dissenting opinion below. Lischin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 104 N. J. Super. 525, 527 (App. Div. 1969).

All members of the Appellate Division agreed that the company’s undertaking to pay for loss of use of the stolen automobile “until setlement for such theft is offered by the Company” was ambiguous in nature. The assured could reasonably expect that he would be paid for loss of use within the stated policy limitation of $10 per day (maximum of $300), until the company in good faith made a settlement offer in cash which he could use immediately to obtain alternate transportation. Surely a settlement offer in cash but payable at a later date would not have disentitled the assured to payment for loss of use in the interim period. That being so, and in the light of well settled principles of *134 construction (104 N. J. Super., at 528), the obscure policy language may fairly be taken to have contemplated payment for loss of use during the interim period where, as here, the automobile was being repaired at the company’s direction for ultimate return to the assured.

For reversal — Chief Justice Wbintratjb and Justices Jacobs, Prancis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and HaneMAN — 7.

For affirmance — None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We reverse, essentially for the reasons expressed by Judge Lewis in his dissenting opinion below. Lischin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 104 N. J. Super. 525, 527 (App. Div. 1969).

All members of the Appellate Division agreed that the company’s undertaking to pay for loss of use of the stolen automobile “until setlement for such theft is offered by the Company” was ambiguous in nature. The assured could reasonably expect that he would be paid for loss of use within the stated policy limitation of $10 per day (maximum of $300), until the company in good faith made a settlement offer in cash which he could use immediately to obtain alternate transportation. Surely a settlement offer in cash but payable at a later date would not have disentitled the assured to payment for loss of use in the interim period. That being so, and in the light of well settled principles of *134 construction (104 N. J. Super., at 528), the obscure policy language may fairly be taken to have contemplated payment for loss of use during the interim period where, as here, the automobile was being repaired at the company’s direction for ultimate return to the assured.

For reversal — Chief Justice Wbintratjb and Justices Jacobs, Prancis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and HaneMAN — 7.

For affirmance — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.2d 803, 54 N.J. 132, 1969 N.J. LEXIS 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lischin-v-nationwide-mutual-insurance-co-nj-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack