Summary
emphasizing that special coverage is required for "products-completed operations hazard," but relegating the question of when operations were completed in the given situation to the jury
Summary of this case from Gottlieb v. Newark Ins. Co.Opinion
Argued October 7, 1968 —
Decided November 4, 1968.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division.
Mr. Charles M. Egan, Jr., argued the cause for third-party plaintiff-respondent and cross-appellant ( Messrs. Egan, O'Donnell, Hanley and Clifford, attorneys).
Mr. Mark D. Larner argued the cause for third-party defendant-appellant and cross-respondent ( Messrs. Budd, Larner, Kent and Gross, attorneys).
These cross-appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Division, 103 N.J. Super. 201, 247 A.2d 20, (1967), relate to the issue of policy coverage. For the reasons given in the majority opinion, we agree there is a triable issue as to whether the work was completed, and hence the judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.
For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL and HANEMAN — 6.
For reversal — None.