Abouzaid v. Mansard Gardens Associates, LLC
207 N.J. 67
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Mansard Gardens Associates, LLC (insurer GNY) held a CGL policy covering bodily injury; policy defines bodily injury and occurrence.
- On Aug 22, 2007, a paint thinner flash fire at the Abouzaid/Moustafa residence trapped children; minor plaintiffs suffered burns; mothers witnessed injuries.
- Count III of the complaint alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress by Mansard without alleging physical injury or manifestations.
- GNY denied coverage for Count III and reserved rights; Mansard defended and later amended Count III to claim medical costs tied to emotional distress.
- Trial court found duty to defend for Count III; Appellate Division reversed, saying Portee claims without physical injury do not trigger bodily-injury coverage; Supreme Court granted certification.
- Supreme Court held a Portee claim can trigger defense under a bodily-injury policy even without explicit physical injury in the initial pleading, when the claim is potentially coverable under the policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Portee emotional distress trigger a defense under bodily-injury coverage without physical injury? | Portee claim is potentially within coverage. | Portee lacks bodily-injury allegations; no coverage. | Yes; Portee claim may trigger defense despite lack of physical injury in pleading. |
| Should defense be triggered ab initio if the complaint shows potential coverage, even ambiguously worded? | Pleadings show potential coverable claim. | Coverage not clearly present; no defense obligated. | Defense must be provided if claim is potentially coverable. |
| Does Voorhees require defense for emotional distress claims admitted or later shown to involve physical sequelae? | Voorhees supports defense when physical manifestations may appear. | Voorhees ambiguous; only a covered claim triggers defense. | Voorhees supports defense where potential bodily injury could be proven; not limited to explicit pleadings. |
| Is the Appellate Division correct in requiring physical manifestation to trigger Portee coverage? | No rigid requirement; Portee permits severe emotional distress without initial physical injury. | Policy covers bodily injury; Portee must show physical harm. | Appellate Division reversed; judgment to defend and reinstate court ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Portee v. Jaffee, 84 N.J. 88 (1980) (establishes Portee elements for bystander emotional distress not requiring direct physical injury in all cases)
- Voorhees v. Preferred Mutual Ins. Co., 128 N.J. 165 (1992) (defines bodily injury and requires defense when potentially covered emotional distress with bodily effects may exist)
- Falzone v. Busch, 45 N.J. 559 (1965) (rejected physical-impact rule for emotional distress under zone of danger)
- Ward v. West Jersey & Seashore R.R. Co., 65 N.J.L. 383 (1900) (early physical-injury/impact principle for emotional distress)
- Jablonowska v. Suther, 195 N.J. 91 (2008) (reaffirms Portee/emotional distress framework and whether physical injury is required)
- SL Indus. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 128 N.J. 188 (1992) (addresses how after-acquired information affects duty to defend under bodily-injury policy)