STRUBE v. TRAVELERS INDEM. CO. OF ILLINOIS, N.J., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Craig J. Hubert argued the cause for appellant ( Brotman Graziano, attorneys; Mr. Hubert and Dennis S. Brotman, of counsel and on the brief). Michele M. Fox argued the cause for respondent The Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois, etc. ( Kenney Kearney, attorneys; Ms. Fox and Ralph R. Smith, 3rd, on the brief). C. Edward Speidel argued the cause for respondent Webster H. Grimm, improperly pleaded as Webster M. Grimm ( Golden, Rothschild, Spagnola DiFazio, attorneys). Marc L. Dembling argued the cause for respondent C.I.A.P.N.J. ( Berlin, Kaplan, Dembling Burke, attorneys).

Judges

PER CURIAM.
STEIN and COLEMAN, Justices, dissenting.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Craig J. Hubert argued the cause for appellant ( Brotman Graziano, attorneys; Mr. Hubert and Dennis S. Brotman, of counsel and on the brief). Michele M. Fox argued the cause for respondent The Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois, etc. ( Kenney Kearney, attorneys; Ms. Fox and Ralph R. Smith, 3rd, on the brief). C. Edward Speidel argued the cause for respondent Webster H. Grimm, improperly pleaded as Webster M. Grimm ( Golden, Rothschild, Spagnola DiFazio, attorneys). Marc L. Dembling argued the cause for respondent C.I.A.P.N.J. ( Berlin, Kaplan, Dembling Burke, attorneys).

Judges

PER CURIAM.
STEIN and COLEMAN, Justices, dissenting.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

NANCY STRUBE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OFILLINOIS (T.I.L.) INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, WEBSTERM. GRIMM AND C.I.A.P.N.J., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Baime's opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 277 N.J. Super. 236, 649 A.2d 624 (1994).

STEIN and COLEMAN, Justices, dissenting.

We would reverse, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Kestin's dissenting opinion, reported at 277 N.J. Super. 236, 649 A.2d 624 (1994).

For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN and GARIBALDI-5.

For reversal — Justices STEIN and COLEMAN-2.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

STRUBE v. TRAVELERS INDEM. CO. OF ILLINOIS

NANCY STRUBE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OFILLINOIS (T.I.L.) INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, WEBSTERM. GRIMM AND C.I.A.P.N.J., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Comments