NATIONAL CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. DOUGLAS LEMUS, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3632-04T13632-04T1

NATIONAL CONTINENTAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DOUGLAS LEMUS t/a MORRIS LIMO &

CAR SERVICES, LUIS P. MATOS-MATOS,

JAMES E. CONNELL, JR. and JONATHAN

J. SCHMIDT,

Defendants,

and

NIRMALA D. GANTI, individually and

as administratrix of THE ESTATE OF

GOPALAKRISHNA D. GANTI,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________________

 

Argued September 13, 2006 - Decided October 6, 2006

Before Judges Stern, Collester and Sabatino.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County,

Docket No. L-3005-03.

James P. Lisovicz argued the cause for

appellant Nirmala D. Ganti, individually

and as Administratrix of the Estate of

Gopalakrishna D. Ganti (Coughlin Duffy,

attorneys; Mr. Lisovicz, of counsel and on

the brief).

John M. Palm argued the cause for respondent

(Garrigle and Palm, attorneys; Cynthia L.

Sozio, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Nirmala T. Ganti, individually and as administratrix of the Estate of her late husband ("Ganti"), appeals from an order entered on February 8, 2005, granting plaintiff, National Continental Insurance Company ("NC"), summary judgment in this declaratory judgment action. Judge Vincent LeBlon concluded that NC had "no duty to defend nor indemnify" defendants Douglas Lemus t/a Morris Limo and Luis P. Matos-Matos, its driver, incident to the death of Ganti's husband, and there was "no coverage for punitive damages" in the underlying motor vehicle accident-wrongful death case. Ganti argues that "the trial court erred in holding that [NC] was not estopped from denying coverage despite its control of the defense in the underlying action." She essentially argues that the judge should have at least held a "plenary hearing to determine whether Lemus and Matos had either a reasonable expectation of coverage based on [NC's] actions or were prejudiced by [its] control of their defense for an extended period of time."

We affirm the judgment substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge LeBlon in his letter opinion of February 9, 2005. We emphasize, as did Judge LeBlon, that Ganti, plaintiff in the underlying action, not Lemus nor Matos-Matos, sought coverage from NC. In fact, Lemus and Matos-Matos "never reported the accident . . . to anyone at National Continental Insurance Company" and defaulted in the declaratory judgment action, despite reasonable efforts by NC to safeguard their interests before recognizing it had no duty to provide them with a defense or coverage.

In essence, we see no basis to preclude NC from denying coverage under a policy that insured neither the vehicle nor the driver. This is particularly true when neither Lemus nor Matos-Matos affirmatively sought coverage. NC immediately denied coverage for punitive damages and dispatched a "reservation of rights" letter approximately two months after receipt of the Estate's claim. There appears to have been no reasonable reliance by either Lemus or Matos-Matos of coverage under the NC policy. See, e.g., Griggs v. Bertram, 88 N.J. 347, 356 (1982); American Handling Equip. v. T.C. Moffatt & Co., 184 N.J. Super. 131, 143-44 (App. Div. 1982).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3632-04T1

October 6, 2006