Yarrington v. Baldwin Manor, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Yarrington v. Baldwin Manor, Inc.

286 A.2d 711, 60 N.J. 169, 1972 N.J. LEXIS 229

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 7, 1972·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Pee Curiam :

The Appellate Division concluded that since there had been no damage during the period of the policy its coverage did not, under its explicit terms, extend to the occurrence set forth in the third party complaint. The particular record before us would not fairly permit any other conclusion and accordingly the Appellate Division’s judgment is:

Affirmed.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Eeanois, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Mountain—7.

For reversal—Hone.

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

Pee Curiam :

The Appellate Division concluded that since there had been no damage during the period of the policy its coverage did not, under its explicit terms, extend to the occurrence set forth in the third party complaint. The particular record before us would not fairly permit any other conclusion and accordingly the Appellate Division’s judgment is:

Affirmed.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Eeanois, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Mountain—7.

For reversal—Hone.

Yarrington v. Baldwin Manor, Inc., 286 A.2d 711, 60 N.J. 169, 1972 N.J. LEXIS 229 (N.J. 1972).

Pincite

286 A.2d 711 (Yarrington v. Baldwin Manor, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related