MARIE CALVAIRE v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3518-04T13518-04T1
MARIE CALVAIRE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
____________________________
MARIE CALVAIRE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FIRST TRENTON INDEMNITY
COMPANY,
Defendant-Respondent,
and
MARIE N. DESIR, JEAN D. DESIR,
AQUELL SYED, and MAROUN J. MAROUN,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________
Argued January 10, 2006 - Decided January 26, 2006
Before Judges Coburn and Lisa.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Middlesex County, L-9192-02.
Donald T. Joworisak argued the cause for
appellant (Karim Arzadi, attorney; Mr. Joworisak,
on the brief).
William S. Bloom argued the cause for
respondent First Trenton Indemnity Company
(Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys; Mr. Bloom,
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this action against defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ("Liberty") for personal injury protection benefits and underinsured motorist coverage, plaintiff Marie Calvaire appeals from an order granting defendant summary judgment.
The judge found that Calvaire had made material misrepresentations to Liberty respecting the seriousness of a subsequent automobile accident and the severity of the injuries she incurred as a result of that accident. Calvaire appeals, contending that the judge erred in finding that plaintiff's misstatements constituted fraud as a matter of law, thereby warranting denial of coverage.
After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that all of Calvaire's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion,
R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge LeBlon in his thorough and well-reasoned oral opinion of October 22, 2004.
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
3
A-3518-04T1
January 26, 2006
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.