Legal Research,Lexis

Legal Research,Lexis

566 A.2d 227:

236 N.J. Super. 473, *; 566 A.2d 227, **;

1989 N.J. Super. LEXIS 385, ***

RUETGERS-NEASE CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FIREMEN'S INSURANCE OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. APPEAL OF PENNSYLVANIA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

No. A-4719-88T1F

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

236 N.J. Super. 473; 566 A.2d 227; 1989 N.J. Super. LEXIS 385

October 24, 1989, Argued

November 6, 1989, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE

Appellant Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Association (PIGA) challenged a decision of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, which denied appellant's motion to dismiss respondent chemical company's action for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent filed a declaratory action that sought to establish insurance coverage with respect to environmental contamination claims made against it relating to sites in New Jersey and other states.OVERVIEW

By a declaratory action, respondent chemical company sought to establish insurance coverage with respect to environmental contamination claims in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Appellant Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Association (PIGA), an unincorporated association created by Pennsylvania law and intended to protect policyholders and claimants within the protected class from the consequences of carrier insolvency, was joined because two of respondent's alleged policies were issued by now insolvent companies. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that under Pennsylvania law, appellant stood in the insolvent carriers' shoes and was liable to respondent under the policies to the same extent the insolvent carriers were, subject to the statutory limits. The court found that appellant's coverage extended to claims, wherever located, if the claimant was a Pennsylvania resident. The court concluded that appellant could reasonably anticipate being brought into court in appropriate foreign jurisdictions, and that New Jersey had a particular interest in this cleanup because the litigation involved the financial response to contaminated areas within the state.OUTCOME

The court affirmed the denial of appellant Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Association's (PIGA) motion to dismiss respondent chemical company's declaratory action for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that appellant stood in the shoes of respondent's insolvent insurance carriers and was liable to the same extent as the insolvent carriers would have been for coverage on the environmental contamination claims.

29 N.W. 425:

69 Iowa 495, *; 29 N.W. 425, **;

1886 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 277, ***

BAUGH v. BARRETT, ADM'R.

[NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL]

SUPREME COURT OF IOWA, DES MOINES

69 Iowa 495; 29 N.W. 425; 1886 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 277

October, 1886, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE

Appellee creditor brought an action in the Marion Circuit Court (Iowa) against appellant administrator in which the creditor asserted a claim against the decedent's estate. After the circuit court entered judgment for the creditor, the administrator sought review on the ground that the only money in the estate to pay the debt was from a federal pension that was exempt from seizure.

OVERVIEW

After her husband's death, the decedent received the payments from his federal disability pension. The administrator claimed that the pension money was exempt from seizure, but the trial court disagreed, as did the court. The court noted that Iowa Acts, ch. 23, 20th Gen. Assembly exempted pension moneys while they were in a pensioner's possession and under certain ...