From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schwartz v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Feb 14, 1968
99 N.J. Super. 223 (App. Div. 1968)

Opinion

Argued February 5, 1968 —

Decided February 14, 1968.

Before Judges GAULKIN, LEWIS and KOLOVSKY.

Mr. Edward J. Russo argued the cause for defendant-appellant ( Messrs. Nugent, Russo Tumulty, attorneys).

Mr. Frederick Klaessig argued the cause for plaintiffs-respondents.


The facts of the case and the terms of the policy are set forth in Judge Botter's opinion reported in 96 N.J. Super. 520 ( Law Div. 1967). He concluded "Since the facts before the court are not in dispute in material respects, plaintiffs' motion for judgment could have been granted as a matter of law." We agree and affirm.

Since plaintiffs' motion for judgment should have been granted, it is not necessary to discuss defendant's contention that the trial court erred in the manner of its use of R.R. 4:50-1 and 2 in submitting the case to the jury.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Schwartz v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Feb 14, 1968
99 N.J. Super. 223 (App. Div. 1968)
Case details for

Schwartz v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:FRANK H. SCHWARTZ AND LOUISE SCHWARTZ, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. JOHN…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Feb 14, 1968

Citations

99 N.J. Super. 223 (App. Div. 1968)
239 A.2d 248

Citing Cases

Weil v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co.

Co., supra, 778 F. Supp. 912; Taylor v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., supra, 142 N.E.2d 5), armed…

Perrine v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America

solely to the acts or events preceding the injury, requiring very literally that something unforeseen,…