New Jersey Family Law

SUMMIT DIVORCE MEDIATION

The husband was killed by a hit-and-run driver as he walked to his aunt’s house to see if he could spend the night there. During apparently frequent periods of marital strife, the husband would routinely leave the marital home and go to stay with his parents or other relatives, but would inevitably return to the marital home in NY. He had been staying with his parents, sleeping on their couch, prior to the night in question; he had brought no clothing with him, and did not express an intent to stay and reside there. Neither the widow nor her husband had an automobile and, consequently, the only uninsured motorist coverage that would be available would be from his parents’ carrier if, as the widow urges, her husband was found to be a member of his parents’ household at the time of the accident. On the facts presented, the court enters judgment for the defendant insurance carrier, determining that he was not . There is nothing to suggest that the husband’s use of his parents’ couch was anything more than another temporary cooling off period before his inevitable return to his wife and children. Estate of Welch, etc., et al. v. State Farm Ins., et al., New Jersey Law Div., February 8, 2007

MORRISTOWN DIVORCE MEDIATION

The deceased ex-husband should have maintained the life insurance policy on his life, called for under the parties' New Jersey judgment of divorce. Therefore, the ex-wife's motion for a $300,000 judgment against the defendant (the Estate of the late husband) for failure to provide the insurance was properly granted, for benefit of the parties’ unemancipated daughter, even though the Estate had a pending coverage suit against the insurer.  Weiss, etc. v. Estate of Robinson, Deceased, New Jersey App. Div., January 11, 2007

MORRIS COUNTY FAMILY MEDIATION

Dismissal of the father's complaint against the insurance company for coverage under his homeowner's policy affirmed. The father sought a defense against and indemnity for allegations that the son, an adult with intellectual deficits, had molested the plaintiff while she was an infant and that the father had failed to supervise the son properly. The intentional act exclusion in the policy "unequivocally" removed coverage; the Appellate Division rejected the father's arguments that the exclusion was ambiguous and that the son's intellectual deficits created a material dispute as to whether the molestation was "intentional" under the policy.     Villa v. Short, New Jersey App. Div., December 27, 2006

HUDSON COUNTY DIVORCE : LIFE INSURANCE PROCEEDS

The deceased ex-husband had two New Jersey marriages and divorces. As to his life insurance obligations to his children from his two marriages, the New Jersey divorce judge correctly rejected the second ex-wife's contention that the share of her deceased daughter should go to her surviving sister, thus leaving nothing for the child from decedent's first marriage. The parties' New Jersey divorce agreement provided that life insurance would be provided for the two girls until their "emancipation" which includes death. Since the daughter predeceased her father, her estate was not entitled to a share of the insurance.  Sato v. Balagot, New Jersey App. Div., September 13, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION

This case involves competing claims to a decedent's life insurance proceeds by his adopted daughter from his first marriage -- for whom he was to maintain life insurance under his New Jersey divorce judgment -- and his second ex-wife and her son, who he named as beneficiaries of the same policy during his second marriage. The threshold issue is which document governs: the New Jersey divorce judgment or the life insurance enrollment form? The appellate panel agrees with the motion judge's grant of summary judgment to the adopted daughter. She is entitled to prevail because she was not emancipated at the time of decedent's death, and his child support obligations to her continued to that time.  Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Caputo, et al., New Jersey App. Div., August 15, 2006

Divorce & Medical Expenses

He was required to pay for her medical expenses incurred from the time of the New Jersey divorce complaint until the date of the judgment of divorce. However, any expenses after the date of the Judgment were her responsibility. The Appellate Division specifically rejects her claim that the judge should have required him to offer her COBRA coverage.   Duffy v. Duffy, New Jersey App. Div., August 23, 2005