Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Oxford Realty Group Cedar v. Travelers Excess & Surplus Lines Co.

Oxford Realty Group Cedar v. Travelers Excess & Surplus Lines Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

January 31, 2017, Argued; May 25, 2017, Decided

A-85 September Term 2015, 077617

Opinion

 [**1265]  [*199]   JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this appeal, we consider competing arguments about a surplus lines insurance contract's coverage for a flood occurrence. Specifically, we are called upon to determine whether debris removal coverage applies in addition to the policy's endorsement limiting flood coverage for all losses "resulting from Flood to buildings, structures or property in the open" in [***9]  the policy's covered flood zone.

The insured contracted, through the services of a licensed broker, with the insurer to obtain the surplus lines coverage for certain commercial apartment buildings. The insurance policy provided limits of insurance for the insured's buildings and business personal property. The policy also listed limits of insurance for various occurrences and expenses, including debris removal. According to the policy, the debris removal coverage could apply in addition to certain limits of insurance for covered property under certain conditions.

Although the original insurance policy disclaimed all flood coverage, the parties added an endorsement to obtain access to flood coverage. The endorsement limited flood coverage to $1,000,000, a sum delineated in the supplemental coverage declarations.

 [*200]  The insured's property sustained severe damage during Superstorm Sandy. The insured claimed debris removal coverage in addition to $1,000,000 in flood damage. The insurer refused to pay any amount above the $1,000,000 flood damage cap in the endorsement. The insured sued for the debris removal coverage.

The trial court determined that the policy unambiguously capped the insured's [***10]  recovery at $1,000,000. The Appellate Division reversed and held that the debris removal provisions applied in addition to the $1,000,000 flood limit.

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we hold that the insurance policy unambiguously capped the insured's recovery at $1,000,000. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Appellate Division granting additional debris removal coverage.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

229 N.J. 196 *; 160 A.3d 1263 **; 2017 N.J. LEXIS 570 ***; 2017 WL 2290135

OXFORD REALTY GROUP CEDAR, CLA MANAGEMENT, AND R.K. PATTEN, LLC, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. TRAVELERS EXCESS AND SURPLUS LINES COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Prior History:  [***1] On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Oxford Realty Grp. Cedar v. Travelers Excess & Surplus Lines Co., 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 552 (App.Div., Mar. 14, 2016)

CORE TERMS

coverage, flood, debris, removal, Declarations, Supplemental, Endorsement, insured, ambiguity, Limits, occurrence, insurance policy, insurance contract, reasonable expectation, contra proferentem, general condition, flood damage, damages, parties, aggregate limit, unambiguously, Expenses, losses, terms of the policy, business personal property, summary judgment, surplus, lines, physical loss, sophisticated

Business & Corporate Compliance, Insurance Company Operations, Conducting Business, Surplus Lines Insurers, Insurance Law, Policy Interpretation, Ambiguous Terms, General Overview, Claim, Contract & Practice Issues, Plain Language, Entire Contract, Contracts Law, Contract Interpretation, Ambiguities & Contra Proferentem, Construction Against Insurers, Reasonable Expectations, Standardized Agreements