Self-Insurance Obligations Under NJ Law: Forecasting the Future of Benjamin Moore

The NJ Supreme Court has recently elected to hear appeals in two coverage actions involving the same basic issue ' namely, reconciling the application of the Owens-Illinois "continuous trigger theory" with the application of specific policy provisions under New Jersey law. In the first of these two cases, <i>Spaulding Composites Company, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty &amp; Surety,</i> the court strongly affirmed the viability of the continuous trigger theory, invalidating a clear and unambiguous non-cumulation clause that it found conflicted with this approach. <i>Spaulding Composites Company, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty &amp; Surety,</i> 176 N.J. 25, 46 (2003). In the second case, <i>Benjamin Moore &amp; Company v. Aetna Casualty &amp; Surety,</i> which is pending, the court must now determine how to apply the continuous trigger theory to self-insurance features contained in a series of unambiguous policy endorsements which do not appear to conflict with a continuous trigger. No. A-4423-01T2F, 2003 WL 1904383 (App. Div., Jan. 14, 2003), appeal granted, 176 N.J. 70 (2003).

30 minute read October 01, 2003 at 12:10 PM

By

Stephen V. Gimigliano and Dennis P. Monaghan