SARAH E. LANDIS VS. CYNTHIA R. HERAZ (L-0080-20, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4279-19

On June 18, 2019 Sarah Landis was a passenger in her mother's car and injured by an underinsured driver whose insurer (Geico) paid its $15,000 limit.
Landis was an insured under two UIM policies: her mother’s High Point policy ($100,000 UIM) and her grandmother’s Farm Family policy ($250,000 UIM).
Both insurers had "other insurance" clauses that treated their own coverage as excess if similar coverage existed elsewhere; Farm Family's clause included pro‑rata sharing language, High Point's did not.
Landis sued for UIM benefits; the insurers cross‑claimed and disputed which policy was primary and how UIM liability should be allocated.
The trial court held the insurers’ other‑insurance clauses were mutually repugnant (so both policies are primary), that non‑congruent sharing provisions required equal sharing, and limited total recovery to Farm Family’s $250,000 cap (after applying Geico’s $15,000).
The court allocated $100,000 to High Point and $135,000 to Farm Family; High Point appealed. Both insurers ultimately settled with Landis, High Point preserving its appeal rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the insurers' "other insurance" clauses are mutually repugnant so both policies are primary	Landis: both policies provide UIM and should be treated as primary so she can recover against both	High Point: its clause makes its policy excess to Farm Family's policy (so High Point is not primary)	Court: both clauses are excess clauses and therefore mutually repugnant; both policies are primary (affirmed)
How to allocate UIM liability between the insurers given incongruent sharing clauses and NJ anti‑stacking limits	Landis: insurers should share liability (practical effect: both contribute up to limits subject to statutory cap)	High Point: should not owe primary share; Farm Family: policies are co‑primary and sharing rules control (Farm Family advanced pro‑rata language)	Court: noncongruent sharing provisions require equal sharing up to the lowest limit; applying anti‑stacking cap and Geico credit, High Point = $100,000; Farm Family = $135,000 (affirmed)

CNA Ins. Co. v. Selective Ins. Co., 354 N.J. Super. 369 (App. Div. 2002) (distinguishes true excess policies from primary policies that contain excess other‑insurance clauses)
Hanco v. Sisoukraj, 364 N.J. Super. 41 (App. Div. 2003) (when other‑insurance clauses are incongruent, insurers share equally)
Cosmopolitan Mut. Ins. Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 28 N.J. 554 (1959) (mutually repugnant other‑insurance clauses render all policies primary and require allocation by clause terms)
Ambrosio v. Affordable Auto Rental, Inc., 307 N.J. Super. 114 (App. Div. 1998) (describes equal‑sharing mechanics among primary insurers)