History
  • No items yet
midpage
Griggs v. Bertram
175 N.J. Super. 501
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
1980
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

The facts, essentially undisputed, appear in the published opinion of the trial judge, 163 N.J.Super. 87, 394 A.2d 174 (Law Div. 1978). We affirm.

No bad faith on the part of the settling parties appears, despite the unique nature of the arrangement. The disclaiming insurance company, appellant here, did not demonstrate that the settlement was unreasonable. Indeed, rather it asks us to impose on the settling parties the burden of proof with respect to the reasonableness of the settlement despite the fact of the company’s belated disclaimer. We decline thus to burden a disappointed insured with that which amounts to a presumption *503of unreasonableness at the behest of an insurance company which voluntarily removed itself from the fray.

In the circumstances of this particular case we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Hamlin.

Case Details

Case Name: Griggs v. Bertram
Court Name: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Date Published: Sep 23, 1980
Citation: 175 N.J. Super. 501
Court Abbreviation: N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.