Dionicio Rodriguez v. Shelbourne Spring, LLC, A-2079-22

Dionicio Rodriguez, an employee of SIR Electric, LLC, was injured at work and received workers’ compensation benefits through Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company.
Rodriguez then filed a tort suit against SIR and others, alleging his injury resulted from SIR’s gross negligence, recklessness, and intentional misconduct, citing the Laidlow v. Hariton Mach. Co. standard to pierce the workers' compensation bar.
SIR requested Hartford to defend it in the tort action under its employer's liability policy; Hartford denied coverage, citing the policy’s exclusion for intentional wrongs (Employer’s Liability EII exclusion).
SIR filed a third-party complaint to compel Hartford to defend it. The trial court dismissed SIR’s complaint, finding Hartford owed no duty to defend based on the clear policy exclusion; SIR’s motion for reconsideration was denied as to the request for leave to amend.
On interlocutory appeal, SIR challenged the trial court’s interpretation of both the Laidlow exception and the enforceability of the exclusion, and sought to assert public policy arguments against the exclusion language.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Duty to Defend Under Policy	SIR argues Hartford must defend negligence and gross negligence claims, not just intentional wrongs.	Hartford asserts policy’s EII exclusion precludes coverage for Laidlow-type (intentional wrong) claims.	No duty to defend; all claims pled are Laidlow claims, expressly excluded by the policy.
Policy Exclusion Clarity	SIR claims exclusion does not precisely track precedent, potentially ambiguous.	Hartford says exclusion is clear, mirrors the Supreme Court’s directives post-Delta Plastics and Beseler.	Exclusion is clear and enforceable; not ambiguous.
Public Policy	SIR argues the exclusion violates public policy, as employees could be left undefended.	Hartford points to regulatory approval of the exclusion and Supreme Court approval of such language.	Exclusion approved and consistent with public policy; argument lacks merit.
Leave to Amend Complaint	SIR sought to amend to formally challenge legality of the exclusion.	Hartford argued amendment would be futile, as issue is settled law.	Leave to amend properly denied; amendment would be futile.

Laidlow v. Hariton Mach. Co., 170 N.J. 602 (defines employer intentional wrong exception to workers’ comp exclusivity)
Van Dunk v. Reckson Assocs. Realty Corp., 210 N.J. 449 (clarifies substantial certainty standard for intentional wrong)
Millison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161 (distinguishes negligent/grossly negligent conduct from intentional wrongs under workers’ comp)
Charles Beseler Co. v. O’Gorman & Young, Inc., 188 N.J. 542 (ambiguity in policy exclusion construed in favor of insured)
N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Delta Plastics Corp., 188 N.J. 582 (policy language must expressly exclude substantially certain conduct for intentional wrong exclusion to apply)