Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
New Jersey Supreme Court finds the claims at issue were 'clearly' loss or damage resulting from accident or injury and there was no intent in the state's Direct Action Statute to limit coverage 15 Sep 2022 News New Jersey Supreme Court considers the construction of the Direct Action Statute Already a subscriber? Sign in to continue reading. If content does not display, please refresh your browser. New to Insurance Day?
What You Need to Know The issue at hand in this case involved an interpretation of the statutory construction of New Jersey’s Direct Action Statute, which permits a judgment creditor holding an unsatisfied judgment to file a direct action against the debtor’s insurance company under certain circumstances. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling expressly recognizes the viability of direct actions for damages from construction defect claims against a judgment debtor’s insurer.
On October 4, 2018, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division issued an opinion which has been approved for publication in Wright v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., holding that a technical violation of the Fair Foreclosure Act (FFA) in a notice of intention to foreclose (NOI) may serve as a basis for liability under New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA).
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
