Bardis v. Stinson, 444 N.J. Super. 448 (App. Div. 2016).  This insurance coverage matter is a case with an unusual sequence of appellate events.  The case was argued before the Appellate Division on December 4, 2013.  The panel issued a 2-1 decision on October 8, 2014.  Judge Maven wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Hoffman joined.  Judge Sapp-Peterson dissented.  The majority opinion reversed a summary judgment that plaintiffs’ homeowners insurance policy, which protected

My firm, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, was successful in two Appellate Division cases within the last few days.  Last week, in Villaquiran v. All-State International, Inc.,  2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1633 (App.  Div. July 8, 2014), one of my cases, the Appellate Division reversed a ruling of the Law Division that an employee (LDG’s client on appeal, but represented by different counsel below) who had

Litwin v. Whirlpool Corp., 436 N.J. Super. 80 (App. Div. 2014).  In Portee v. Jaffee, 84 N.J. 88 (1980), the Supreme Court established “a cause of action for damages to a bystander as a result of witnessing an injury-producing event to one with whom the bystander has an intimate or familial relationship,” as this opinion by Judge Sapp-Peterson summarized it.  One element of a Portee claim is “[o]bservation of the death or injury at the scene of the