NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIE H. ROBERTAZZI, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM JOHN ROBERTAZZI, DECEASED, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DECEDENTS, SURVIVORS AND ESTATE, AND MARIE H. ROBERTAZZI, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company appealed a partial summary judgment in favor of Marie Robertazzi regarding coverage under an automobile insurance policy issued in New Jersey for an accident occurring in Florida. The court reversed, holding that New Jersey law governed the interpretation of the insurance contract and that under New Jersey law, the operator's lack of owner consent precluded coverage.
The court held that New Jersey law, not Florida law, governs the interpretation of the insurance contract under the rule of lex loci contractus. Under New Jersey law, there is no coverage or liability because the operator's lack of owner consent is fatal to any claim of agency, which is necessary to establish the owner's liability.
[1] The "most significant relationship test" for tort claims does not apply to contract claims.
[2] The law of the place where a contract was made governs the interpretation of that contract.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the substitution in Bishop applied only to torts and did not apply to contracts”
Establishes that the 'most significant relationship test' from Bishop does not apply to contract interpretation, supporting application of lex loci contractus
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNJI issued a Family Automobile Policy to a New Jersey resident in New Jersey, with premiums paid in New Jersey. An accident occurred in Florida involv…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lex Loci Contractus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the partial summary judgment entered in favor of Marie H. Rober- tazzi and remand with instructions to enter final summary judgment in favor of New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJI) per its motion.
The issue here is coverage and liability, as concerns a Florida automobile accident, under the terms of the Family Automobile Policy issued by NJI. The policy was issued in New Jersey to a New Jersey resident and the premiums were paid in New Jersey. NJI is a New Jersey corporation not licensed to do business in Florida.
The trial court construed and interpreted the terms of the policy under Florida law predicated upon the Florida Supreme Court case of Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Company, 389 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1980). In Bishop our Supreme Court retreated from prior rulings applying the rule of lex loci delecti and substituted the “most significant relationship test” with reference to tort claims for personal injury. However, as noted in the footnote to Jemco, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 400 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), pet. for rev. den. 412 So. 2d 466 (Fla.1982), the substitution in Bishop applied only to torts and did not apply to contracts. We therefore believe the law of New Jersey should have been employed under the rule of lex loci contractus. Andrews v. Continental Insurance Company, 444 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA) pet. for rev. den. 451 So. 2d 847 (Fla.1984), and Jemco, supra. See also Eagle Star Insurance Company v. Parker, 365 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Under the terms of the policy, according to New Jersey law, there is no coverage or liability in favor of Marie H. Robertazzi in any of her capacities. It is undisputed that the operator of the vehicle in question did not have the owner’s consent, and she was driving contrary to the express instructions of the owner. Thus, according to New Jersey law, this is fatal to any claim of agency between the owner and operator, agency being necessary as a predicate for establishing the owner’s liability. Harvey v. Craw, 264 A. 2d 448 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1970).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin Brooks ad Litem of the Estate of Vito Sturiano v. Sturiano, 497 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…nt (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188 (1969) — the significant relationship test as applied to contracts. In determining which state’s law applied to an automobile liability policy, this court in New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co. v. Robertazzi, 473 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1986), refused to substitute the most significant relationship test with the traditional lex loci con-tractus rule, noting that the substitution in Bishop applied only to torts, and not to contract…
-
Timothy and Karen Sheehan v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 504 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…nt (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188 (1969) — the significant relationship test as applied to contracts. In determining which state’s law applied to an automobile liability policy, this court in New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co. v. Robertazzi, 473 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1986), refused to substitute the most significant relationship test with the traditional lex loci contractus rule, noting that the substitution in Bishop applied only to torts, and not to contracts…
-
Shapiro v. Associated Int'l Ins. Co., 899 F.2d 1116 (11th Cir. 1990)…oth lex loci con-tractus and Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 193 to conclude that foreign law governs interpretation of automobile insurance policy), rev. denied, 451 So. 2d 847 (Fla.1984). But see New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Robertazzi, 473 So. 2d 235, 236 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985) (automobile insurance case recognizing that Florida Supreme Court case adopting significant relationship test applies only to tort cases), rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1986); Jemco, 400 So. 2d at 501 n. 5 (recognizing t…
Authorities Cited
- Althea G. Bishop and William J. Bishop, Sr. v. Fla. Specialty Paint Co., 389 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 1980)
- Jemco, Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 400 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Andrews v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 444 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Eagle Star Ins. Co. v. Nannette Parker and Melvin Parker, 365 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)