WEBVTT 2 00:00:06.573 --> 00:00:16.414 VERSUS CIARA CRESPO, NILDA RIVERA, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., 3 00:00:16.414 --> 00:00:35.301 APPEARANCES PLEASE. (APPEARANCES TENDERED.) CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: 4 00:00:35.301 --> 00:00:44.020 GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. I JUST WANT TO REMINDS EVERYONE AS WE HAD DISCUSSED 5 00:00:44.020 --> 00:00:49.182 AT THE OUTSET I WOULD ASK THE PARTIES TO ADOPT PRIOR ARGUMENTS TO THE EXTENT THAT IS 6 00:00:49.182 --> 00:00:54.287 POSSIBLE HERE AND I THINK IT IS AND ADDRESS WHETHER THE ANALYSIS IS DIFFERENT IF THE CASE 7 00:00:54.287 --> 00:01:08.374 INVOLVED UIM VERSUS UM COVERAGE. MR. BOVE, PLEASE. LOUIS A. BOVE: 8 00:01:08.374 --> 00:01:12.617 GOOD MORNING, STILL, MEMBERS OF THE COURT. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A MATERIAL 9 00:01:12.617 --> 00:01:19.800 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOIM AND UM COVERAGE IN NEW JERSEY. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE HERE WAS AT THE 10 00:01:19.800 --> 00:01:26.720 TIME UNDERSTAND THE CHIACCHERI POLICY WHERE HE IS SEEKING UIM BENEFITS IT WASN'T REQUIRED, 11 00:01:26.720 --> 00:01:35.215 LET ALONE MANDATED AS MR. CHIACCHERI SUGGESTED AS TO THE PHYSICAL LIABILITY LIMITS UNDERSTAND 12 00:01:35.215 --> 00:01:43.878 THE POLICY, UM, HOWEVER, WAS AT THE TIME OF MR. TRAVIESO'S ACCIDENT, THAT VERSION OF 1728 13 00:01:43.878 --> 00:01:50.597 REQUIRED UM COVERAGE, THE MANDATORY MINIMUM BEING 15/30 AT THAT TIME, NOW, AGAIN IT'S 14 00:01:50.597 --> 00:02:01.526 25/50 AND NOW, TODAY ATS EASE 35/70. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A DISTINCTION WITHOUT 15 00:02:01.526 --> 00:02:09.752 A DIFFERENCE BASE ZURICH PROVIDED UM, UIM COVERAGE AS IS IN CUSTOM IN NEW JERSEY THAT'S 16 00:02:09.752 --> 00:02:16.689 WHY YOU HAVE A CONSOLIDATED DOEB BEE APPROVED C A 114 COVERAGE FORM. THE ONLY 17 00:02:16.689 --> 00:02:20.760 OTHER MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CASES, THAT AGAIN, I DON'T THINK IS MATERIAL 18 00:02:20.760 --> 00:02:27.491 IN THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS THAT THE POLICY ISSUED TO THE DEALERSHIP COVERED MANY, 19 00:02:27.491 --> 00:02:32.873 MANY VEHICLES AS YOU CAN IMAGINE A CAR DEALERSHIP HAS LOTS OF DIFFERENT REASONS WHY PEOPLE 20 00:02:32.873 --> 00:02:43.699 ARE DRIVING CARS, LOANER CARS, EXAMPLE CARS WHERE YOU TEST DRIVE A CAR, MECHANICS RUNNING 21 00:02:43.699 --> 00:02:51.682 TO GET PARTS, ALL SORTS OF REASONS. IT IS A SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRY IN NEW JERSEY. I SEE 22 00:02:51.682 --> 00:02:59.077 A LOT OF AUTO DEALER COVERAGE FORMS, BUT ZURICH'S NEW JERSEY SPECIFIC POLICY AS OPPOSED 23 00:02:59.077 --> 00:03:07.204 TO IN CHIACCHERI THE POLICY WAS ISSUED TO TJ MAX IN MASSACHUSETTS BUT AGAIN BECAUSE NEW 24 00:03:07.204 --> 00:03:14.812 JERSEY HAS A DOOEM DEEMER STATUTE, WHETHER IT IS, GARAGED VEHICLE REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF 25 00:03:14.812 --> 00:03:22.029 NEW JERSEY HENCE THE 1728 APPLIES, OUT OF STATE POLICIES, IN-STATE POLICIES AN AGAIN IT'S 26 00:03:22.029 --> 00:03:26.413 THE SAME ANALYSIS SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO RESERVE A FEW MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL AND I WILL 27 00:03:26.413 --> 00:03:31.126 LEAVE IT AT THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTION FOR ME. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: 28 00:03:31.126 --> 00:03:41.030 THANK YOU, MR. SAV. MR. RYAN SAVERCOOL SAV CHIEF JUSTICE WE HAVE NOTHING 29 00:03:41.030 --> 00:03:46.237 FURTHER AND WE THANK THE COURT FOR CONSIDERATION OF OUR POINT. CHIEF JUSTICE 30 00:03:46.237 --> 00:04:05.588 RABNER: THANK YOU, MR. BANGUNINSURED AND UNDER SHOWERED PAW AGAIN THIS KIND OF GOES BACK TO 31 00:04:05.588 --> 00:04:12.925 WHAT I SAID BEFORE. WHILE GENERALLY BEFORE TWOUZ UIM WAS OPTIONAL SUBSECTION F MANDATES 32 00:04:12.925 --> 00:04:20.267 COVERAGE AS WELL AS UM COVERAGE IN THESE PARTICULAR POLICIES. AND A LITTLE BIT MORE I 33 00:04:20.267 --> 00:04:28.110 GUESS TRAVIESO GIVES US KINDS OF A LOOK INTO THE LIMITING PRINCIPLE BEHIND SUBSECTION 34 00:04:28.110 --> 00:04:34.482 F SO AGAIN THIS IS A DEALERSHIP POLICY AND AS MR. BOVÉ SAID THERE'S A NUMBER OF REASONS 35 00:04:34.482 --> 00:04:39.649 WHY ANYONE WOULD BE DRIVING ONE OF THESE CARS A LOANER CAR ^ AN ^ AND EMPLOYEE AS MR. 36 00:04:39.649 --> 00:04:47.851 TRAVIESO WAS TEST DRIVING A CAR AFTER HE FIXED IT. THE LIMITING PRINCIPLE IS UNDER F THIS 37 00:04:47.851 --> 00:04:53.195 MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE UM UIM UNDER THE POLICY WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE EMPLOYEE. 38 00:04:53.195 --> 00:04:58.804 SO IT WOULDN'T ATTACH TO PEOPLE LOANING A CAR WOULDN'T ATTACH TO APEOPLE DRIVING THE TEST 39 00:04:58.804 --> 00:05:05.071 DRIVES ASIDE FROM EMPLOYEES THAT IS THE IMPORTANT LIMITING DISTINCTION THAT SUBSECTION 40 00:05:05.071 --> 00:05:12.563 F INTENDED TO, YOU KNOW, THE FAIRNESS THAT SUBSECTION F INTENDED TO ADDRESS 41 00:05:12.563 --> 00:05:15.864 JUSTICE WAINER APTER: SORRY CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME. LOUIS A. BOVÉ: 42 00:05:15.864 --> 00:05:21.359 SO THE LIMITING PRINCIPLE IS I THINK EVIDENT IN TRAVIESO THAT THIS TYPE OF POLICY WHILE, YOU 43 00:05:21.359 --> 00:05:29.279 KNOW, IN FOR TJ MAX THE PEOPLE DRIVING ARE GOING TO BE EMPLOYEES. THERE'S NO OTHER FACT 44 00:05:29.279 --> 00:05:33.788 SCENARIO BUT IN TRAVIESO SINCE IT'S A DEALERSHIP POLICY THERE ARE. THERE COULD BE POTENTIALLY 45 00:05:33.788 --> 00:05:38.617 CUSTOMERS TEST DRIVING OR LOANER CARS OR STUFF LIKE THAT. THEY'RE NOT -- THERE'S NOTHING 46 00:05:38.617 --> 00:05:43.839 SAYING THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COVERAGE UNDER THESE POLICIES. 47 00:05:43.839 --> 00:05:50.179 IT'S A VERY VERY STRICT ANDFY NIGHT REQUIREMENT AND THAT IS TO ENSURE THAT THESE -- THESE 48 00:05:50.179 --> 00:05:54.967 EMPLOYEES ARE COVERED BY HONESTLY WHAT THEY EXPECT. MR. TRAVIESO DIDN'T GET INTO THAT 49 00:05:54.967 --> 00:06:00.885 CAR EXPECTING THAT THERE'S NO REAL UM COVERAGE. MR. CHIEF DIDN'T GET INTO A CAR THAT 50 00:06:00.885 --> 00:06:06.234 HE WAS DRIVING FOR HIS 250 BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR EMPLOYER THINKING THERE'S 15 THOUSAND DOLLARS 51 00:06:06.234 --> 00:06:13.751 OF UIM COVERAGE IF GOD FORBID I SUFFER A SIGNIFICANT BRAIN INJURY. THAT IS WHAT THE 52 00:06:13.751 --> 00:06:22.333 LEGISLATOR WAS TRYING TO ADDRESS IN THIS FAIRNESS SITUATION TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE EMPLOYEES 53 00:06:22.333 --> 00:06:26.611 IN THESE SITUATIONS. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: ONE FURTHER QUESTION. YOU TALKED 54 00:06:26.611 --> 00:06:34.192 ABOUT THIS POLICY WITH THE 15 THOUSAND UIM SLASH UM AND THEN THE 2 MILLION DOLLARS IN 55 00:06:34.192 --> 00:06:40.301 THE OTHER ONE BUT ONE MILLION DOLLARS HERE RIGHT LIABILITY AS BEING UNIQUE. YOU'RE ADVERSARY 56 00:06:40.301 --> 00:06:44.466 SAYS IT'S NOT TALL UNIQUE ALL THE APPOINTMENTS HAVE IT. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORD 57 00:06:44.466 --> 00:06:49.545 ONE WAY OR THE OTHER THAT WE COULD LOOK TO TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION CORRECT. 58 00:06:49.545 --> 00:06:56.114 MATTHEW G. BONANNO: THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORD AND IF I WOULD I WOULD SUGGEST ITS VERY 59 00:06:56.114 --> 00:07:01.913 DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROOF A NEGATIVE. ON OUR SIDE THERE ARE TRADE ASSOCIATIONS 60 00:07:01.913 --> 00:07:07.456 BIG TRADE ASSOCIATIONS THAT NUMBER INSURANCE COUNSEL AND THE INSURANCE COUNSEL OF AMERICA 61 00:07:07.456 --> 00:07:17.993 WHO SHOULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND SAY HOW -- TO DATE OVER THREE, FOUR YEARS OF LITIGATION 62 00:07:17.993 --> 00:07:24.259 WE HAVE NOT SEEN ONE PIECE OF ADATA THAT TALKS TO THAT. THAT DISCUSSES HOW PREVALENT 63 00:07:24.259 --> 00:07:30.947 IF AT ALL THESE POLICIES ARE OTHER THAN THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY SAYING THEY EXIST BECAUSE 64 00:07:30.947 --> 00:07:34.913 WE SAY THEY EXIST. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: THANK YOU COUNSEL. 65 00:07:34.913 --> 00:07:41.448 MATTHEW G. BONANNO: THANK YOU. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MR. DEPAMPHILIS. 66 00:07:41.448 --> 00:07:44.646 DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: THANK YOU ^ AN ^ AND MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT ON BEHALF 67 00:07:44.646 --> 00:07:50.088 OF AMICUS NEW JERSEY ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE COURT ADOPT 68 00:07:50.088 --> 00:07:55.454 THE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSECTION F AS ADVOCATED BY THE PLAINTIFF'S TRAVIESO ^ AN ^ AND 69 00:07:55.454 --> 00:08:03.662 CHIEF. THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE MAKE ARE PREMISED ON ^ AN ^ AND ISSUE OF FAIRNESS MUCH I 70 00:08:03.662 --> 00:08:13.053 THINK THE WORD OF DAY MAY BE PARITY BUT I THINK THERE'S DISPARITY IN THE RECOGNIZE THAT 71 00:08:13.053 --> 00:08:18.467 THE EMPLOYEES HAS NO SAY IN THE COVERAGE THAT THE EMPLOYER PURCHASES. THE EMPLOYEE DOES 72 00:08:18.467 --> 00:08:24.491 NOT NEGOTIATE THE POLICY. THEY DO NOT CHOOSE THE LIMITS. JUSTICE PATTERSON: 73 00:08:24.491 --> 00:08:33.361 THIS COURT'S TASK TO NOT EVALUATE THE STATUTE BUT TO CONSTRUE THE STATUTE AM I RIGHT ABOUT 74 00:08:33.361 --> 00:08:40.604 THAT. LOUIS A. BOVÉ: OF COURSE. ATTORNEY1: AND IF THERE'S 75 00:08:40.604 --> 00:08:47.402 NO ARGUMENT BEING MADE IF THIS THIS COURT VIEWED THIS STATUTE AS FAIR UNFAIR NOT AS GOOD 76 00:08:47.402 --> 00:08:51.574 AS IT COULD BE AS GOOD AS IT COULD BE THOSE ARE NOT RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS ARE THEY. 77 00:08:51.574 --> 00:08:56.287 DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: THEY ARE THE RELEVANT WITH CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE 78 00:08:56.287 --> 00:09:01.819 COURT IS PERMITTED TO LOOK AT THE PURPOSE AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS CONCERNED 79 00:09:01.819 --> 00:09:08.961 WITH FAIRNESS, FAIRNESS AS THE EMPLOYER HAVING POLICIES AND THOSE POLICIES AFFECTING 80 00:09:08.961 --> 00:09:12.657 THE EMPLOYEE I THINK IT'S RELEVANT. JUSTICE PATTERSON: WITH THE LEGISLATOR 81 00:09:12.657 --> 00:09:20.328 SAY THAT -- THAT ANYTHING SPECIFIC TO THE SITUATION THAT WE HAVE HERE. 82 00:09:20.328 --> 00:09:23.850 DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: IN TERMS OF THE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: THE STATEMENT 83 00:09:23.850 --> 00:09:26.964 OF ITS PURPOSE. DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: IN TERMS OF THE ARGUMENTS BEING 84 00:09:26.964 --> 00:09:32.089 PUT FORTH BY THE MRFTS? JUSTICE PATTERSON: I'M ASKING. YOU'RE ARGUING 85 00:09:32.089 --> 00:09:39.807 I THINK THAT THE LEGISLATURE SAID THAT THERE MUST BE FAIRNESS AND FAIRNESS REQUIRES THE 86 00:09:39.807 --> 00:09:45.032 INTERPRETATION THAT THE PLAINTIFF OFFERS HERE. WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE STATUTE 87 00:09:45.032 --> 00:09:49.120 OR THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: I'M NOT LOOKING AT 88 00:09:49.120 --> 00:09:53.050 ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE STATEMENT WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE BILL. JUSTICE 89 00:09:53.050 --> 00:09:58.068 PATTERSON: AND THE STATEMENT WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE BILL SAID SPECIFICALLY WHAT ABOUT THIS 90 00:09:58.068 --> 00:10:01.674 PRECISE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US. DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: WELL I THINK 91 00:10:01.674 --> 00:10:06.758 IT TALKS ABOUT THE PROBATION OF THE EMPLOYEES AND I THINK THAT EVERYONE WHO'S ARGUED THAT 92 00:10:06.758 --> 00:10:14.119 TODAY HAS RECOGNIZED THAT BEING PART THE ISSUE WERE THE SCOOTARY ISSUE. JUSTICE 93 00:10:14.119 --> 00:10:20.383 PATTERSON: AND IS ALSO SPECIFICALLY PUT PROTECTION OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE SETTING OF 94 00:10:20.383 --> 00:10:25.245 ELIMINATING STEP DOWNS. DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: CORRECT. JUSTICE 95 00:10:25.245 --> 00:10:30.588 PATTERSON: AND THE LEGISLATOR REVIEWED STEP DOWNS TO BE UNFAIR TO THE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE 96 00:10:30.588 --> 00:10:38.225 IT ALLOWED FOR THE COVERAGE UM/UIM COVERAGE TO BE MUCH HIGHER ALMOST, YOU KNOW, BY QUITE 97 00:10:38.225 --> 00:10:46.515 A DEGREE FOR NAMED INSUREDS THAN IT WOULD FOR EMPLOYEES. THAT WAS SUGGEST THAT THE 98 00:10:46.515 --> 00:10:49.267 LEGISLATOR TALK ABOUT. DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: I RECOGNIZE THAT AS WELL BUT 99 00:10:49.267 --> 00:10:54.137 I THINK THE OTHER PART OF THAT IS THAT THE EMPLOYEE DOES HAVE NO SAY IN THE BARGAINING 100 00:10:54.137 --> 00:11:00.602 OF THE CONTRACTING FOR THE POLICY RIGHT AND THE IDEA THAT'S BEEN PUT FORTH IS THAT WELL 101 00:11:00.602 --> 00:11:04.850 THE EMPLOYEE CAN RELY UPON THEIR OWN POLICY. THEY CAN DO THINGS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES 102 00:11:04.850 --> 00:11:10.591 WHICH IS MORE THEORETICAL THAN WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN PRACTICE. JUSTICE 103 00:11:10.591 --> 00:11:14.934 PATTERSON: WHERE DOES IT TALK ABOUT THAT IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY? DOMINIC R. 104 00:11:14.934 --> 00:11:19.417 DEPAMPHILIS: WITH REGARD TO THIS STATUTE. I DON'T TLI IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT IN THE 105 00:11:19.417 --> 00:11:26.035 STATEMENT BUT WHAT WE'RE RECOGNIZING IS THAT ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE SCOOTARY AMENDMENT 106 00:11:26.035 --> 00:11:31.055 IS PROTECTION OF THE EMPLOYEES. WE DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE THE SUBJECT TO THE STEP DOWNS 107 00:11:31.055 --> 00:11:38.365 WHERE ESSENTIALLY UIM COVERAGE IS I LOOSARY AND BECAUSE OF THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT 108 00:11:38.365 --> 00:11:44.985 IS THE REALITY FOR THE EMPLOYEE. THE EMPLOYEE MUST RELY ON THE COVERAGE THAT'S PROVIDED 109 00:11:44.985 --> 00:11:49.437 BY THE EMPLOYER. THEY MUST RELY UPON THAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO 110 00:11:49.437 --> 00:11:54.856 NEGOTIATE AND TO CONTRACT WITH CARRIES THE SAME WAY THAT THE SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS DOES 111 00:11:54.856 --> 00:11:59.418 FOR THE SAME. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: GIVEN THAT REALITY WHAT DOES THAT TELL 112 00:11:59.418 --> 00:12:03.215 US ABOUT THE MEANING THE STATUTE. DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: I THU I THE REALITY 113 00:12:03.215 --> 00:12:07.776 TELLS US THE MEANING ISSING PROTECTION THE EMPLOYEES. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: 114 00:12:07.776 --> 00:12:11.999 BUT IT COMES BACK TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE NOT A GENERAL CONCEPT WOULD YOU AGREE. 115 00:12:11.999 --> 00:12:16.473 DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: CORRECT AND WE ARE AS I INDICATED WE ARE ADVOCATING 116 00:12:16.473 --> 00:12:20.466 FOR THE READING THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE PUT FORWARD FOR THE REASONS THEY PUT FORWARD 117 00:12:20.466 --> 00:12:25.055 BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF THE REALITY OF THE ISSUE OF FAIRNESS. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: 118 00:12:25.055 --> 00:12:32.139 WITH YOU SAY THAT EMPLOYEES MUST BE LIMITED BY WHATEVER THEIR EMPLOYERS HAVE ELECTED SEVERAL 119 00:12:32.139 --> 00:12:37.357 TIMES DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE EMPLOYEE CANNOT, THAT YOU'RE DISAGREEING WITH OPPOSING 120 00:12:37.357 --> 00:12:43.712 COUNSEL WHO SAID THAT UM KIM COVERAGE FOLLOWS THE INDIVIDUAL SUCH THAT IF YOU WERE TO E 121 00:12:43.712 --> 00:12:49.249 -ELECTRICITY TO 2 HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS UIM UM COVERAGE UNDER YOUR PERMANENT POLICY 122 00:12:49.249 --> 00:12:52.857 THAT WOULD STILL APPLY IF YOU WERE IN A COMPANY VEHICLE. DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: 123 00:12:52.857 --> 00:12:58.269 CORRECT. I DO DISAGREE. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE IDEA OF THE REGULAR USE SECLUSIONS IN 124 00:12:58.269 --> 00:13:04.594 THE PERSONAL POLICIES. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SEE VERY FREQUENTLY. THERE IS UNREPORTED 125 00:13:04.594 --> 00:13:09.928 APPELLATE DIVISION CASE LAW RECOGNIZING THIS. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: SO IN 126 00:13:09.928 --> 00:13:14.092 PINTO WHY WAS IT TALKING ABOUT THE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR LIMIT THAT HE HAD UNDER HIS 127 00:13:14.092 --> 00:13:17.733 INDIVIDUAL POLICY IF THAT WOULD NEVER APPLY. DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: I DON'T KNOW 128 00:13:17.733 --> 00:13:23.601 IF IN ORDER FOR THEM TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE THIS THAT CASE THEY HAD TO LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE 129 00:13:23.601 --> 00:13:32.802 AND DO THE AM SIS OF, YOU KNOW, ARE THERE SKRUGS SECLUSIONS FOR WHATEVER REASONS. THEY 130 00:13:32.802 --> 00:13:37.931 WERE JUST LOOKING AT COMPARISONS OF COVERAGE WHICH OFTENTIMES HAPPENS. BUT THE APPELLATE 131 00:13:37.931 --> 00:13:45.276 DIVISION AND AGAIN MANY UNREPORTED DECISIONS HAS SAID REGULAR USE SECLUSIONS ARE UNAMBIGUOUS 132 00:13:45.276 --> 00:13:50.794 AND THEY ARE UNENFORCEABLE. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: SORRY ONE MORE QUESTION. 133 00:13:50.794 --> 00:13:56.399 IN PINTO SPECIFICALLY CONTEND PD THAT BECAUSE PINTO WAS NOT A NAMED INSURED UNDER THE 134 00:13:56.399 --> 00:14:03.256 EMPLOYER'S POLICY DOES THE UIM RECOVER WAS CAPPED AT HIS PERSONAL POLICY 1 HUNDRED THOUSAND 135 00:14:03.256 --> 00:14:08.752 LIMIT MANY YOU ARE SAYING THAT IS FALSE. BECAUSE A PERSONAL POLICY CAN NEVER APPLY IF 136 00:14:08.752 --> 00:14:13.915 YOU GET INTO A CAR ACCIDENT WHILE DRIVING YOUR EMPLOYER'S VEHICLE. DOMINIC R. 137 00:14:13.915 --> 00:14:16.568 DEPAMPHILIS: I DON'T THINK I'M SAYING THAT. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: WHAT IS 138 00:14:16.568 --> 00:14:19.881 YOUR ARGUMENT AS TO THAT. DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT 139 00:14:19.881 --> 00:14:23.911 HAPPENED IN PINTO WAS THAT THEY WERE LOOKING PURELY AT THE AVAILABILITY OF COVERAGE. 140 00:14:23.911 --> 00:14:30.705 THEY WERE DOING LIMITS COMPARISONS BETWEEN WHAT THE TORTFEASOR HAD AND WHAT HE HAD UNDER 141 00:14:30.705 --> 00:14:34.181 HIS OWN POLICY. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: CORRECT. DOMINIC R. 142 00:14:34.181 --> 00:14:37.591 DEPAMPHILIS: BECAUSE HE DIDN'T RECOVER ANY UIM THROUGH HIS OWN POLICY. JUSTICE 143 00:14:37.591 --> 00:14:42.317 WAINER APTER: BUT MY WITH IS WHY IS IT RELEVANT IF YOU CAN NEVER COLLECT FROM YOUR OWN 144 00:14:42.317 --> 00:14:45.808 POLICY IF YOU'RE DRIVING YOUR EMPLOYER'S VEHICLE. DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: 145 00:14:45.808 --> 00:14:50.355 THE REASON I'M ADDRESSING IS BECAUSE THE DEFENSE HAS BROUGHT IT UP. THEY HAVE BROUGHT 146 00:14:50.355 --> 00:14:55.811 UP THE HE STILL HAS ^ AN ^ AND AVENUE OF RECOVER HE CAN GO THROUGH HIS OWN POLICY. 147 00:14:55.811 --> 00:15:01.934 JUSTICE WAINER APTER: BUT IN PINTO IT SEEMED TO ASSUME THAT BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT HIS 148 00:15:01.934 --> 00:15:07.614 PERSONAL POLICY AND HOW HE COULD RECOVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS UNDER IT. 149 00:15:07.614 --> 00:15:10.737 DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: AND I THINK THEY HAD TO LOOK THERE BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE 150 00:15:10.737 --> 00:15:14.143 STEP DOWN. THEY HAD TO LOOK AT WHAT HIS COVERAGE WAS. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: 151 00:15:14.143 --> 00:15:19.960 BUT THE STEP DOWN IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING WAS ALWAYS FAKE OR PRETEND IN THAT THE EMPLOYER 152 00:15:19.960 --> 00:15:24.871 -- EMPLOYEE COULD NEVER COLLECT UNDER THEIR OWN POLICY IF THEY WERE DRIVING A COMPANY 153 00:15:24.871 --> 00:15:29.406 VEHICLE SO IT WAS ACTUALLY A STEP DOWN TO ZERO REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEIR OWN PERSONAL POLICY 154 00:15:29.406 --> 00:15:32.998 PROVIDED. DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: I THINK THE DIFFICULTY I'M HAVING IS THAT 155 00:15:32.998 --> 00:15:40.008 THERE IS NOT A REGULAR USE EX COLLUSION IN EVERY POLICY BUT WE SEE THEM AND I CAN'T ANSWER 156 00:15:40.008 --> 00:15:50.753 THE SPECIFIC QUESTION WITHOUT KNOWING THE SECLUSIONARY OF THE PINTO POLICY. 157 00:15:50.753 --> 00:15:55.591 JUSTICE FASCIALE: DOWN IF F37 WILL EXACT F. DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: MY 158 00:15:55.591 --> 00:15:59.852 UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WAS PROPOSE PD AND IT MAY BE ^ AN ^ AND HE CAN DOUGH AT THAT TIME 159 00:15:59.852 --> 00:16:05.144 APPLIES TO PERSONAL POLICIES. JUSTICE PATTERSON: LIMITED TO PERMANENT 160 00:16:05.144 --> 00:16:07.762 POLICIES. DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SAY LIMITED TO YOU 161 00:16:07.762 --> 00:16:14.740 BUT IT APPLIES TO. JUSTICE PATTERSON: WHAT IS NJAJ POSITION AS TO WHAT 162 00:16:14.740 --> 00:16:19.366 IT WOULD APPLY TO IN COMMISSIONER POLICIES IF ANY FLEET POLICIES. DOMINIC R. 163 00:16:19.366 --> 00:16:22.737 DEPAMPHILIS: I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE. CHIEF 164 00:16:22.737 --> 00:16:27.630 JUSTICE RABNER: ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR NOTES GO AHEAD. 165 00:16:27.630 --> 00:16:31.393 DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: I THINK THE LAST THING IS ^ AN ^ AND ARGUMENT TO PUT FORWARD 166 00:16:31.393 --> 00:16:37.768 THAT PLAINTIFF IS ASKING THE COURT TO INTERVENE IN THIS RIGHT OF CONTRACT BETWEEN CARRIER 167 00:16:37.768 --> 00:16:43.317 AND INSURED. I DON'T THINK WE'RE MAKING THAT ARGUMENT. I THINK THE LEGISLATOR HAS ALREADY 168 00:16:43.317 --> 00:16:48.720 INTERVENED. I THINK THEY'VE ALREADY INTERVENED WHEN THEY SAID YOU CAN WRITE POLICIES 169 00:16:48.720 --> 00:16:52.873 WITH STEP DOWNS BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ENFORCEABLE AGAINST ECONOMIES. NOT GOING 170 00:16:52.873 --> 00:16:58.328 TO BE ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THESE CLASS OF PEOPLE SO I THINK THE INTERVENTION HAS ALREADY 171 00:16:58.328 --> 00:17:02.889 HAPPENED AND YOU THINK IT'S ^ AN ^ AND IDEA WHO HAPPEN WHICH REENFORCES THAT THE PLAINTIFFS 172 00:17:02.889 --> 00:17:06.517 HAVE PUT FORWARD. JUSTICE PATTERSON: BUT FOLLOWING SUBSECTION F EVERYBODY 173 00:17:06.517 --> 00:17:13.undefined WAS ON NOTICE OF NO STEP DOWNS AND POLICIES PRESUMABLY CHANGED ACCORDINGLY. 175 00:17:18.098 --> 00:17:23.214 #3ER79ED AND THIS MAY BE A CLASS OF PEOPLE WHICH WOULD BE SEASONAL TO THIS THE STEP DOWNS 176 00:17:23.214 --> 00:17:27.984 LIKE FAMILY MEMBERS PRINCIPLES ^ AN ^ AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS BUT IT'S THE STEP DOWNS 177 00:17:27.984 --> 00:17:31.405 WILL NOT BE ENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST ECONOMIES. JUSTICE PATTERSON: THE PINTO 178 00:17:31.405 --> 00:17:37.492 TYPE OF STEP DOWN IS NOT ENFORCEABLE SO FOLLOWING THE LEGISLATIVE CHANGE THAT MADE SURE 179 00:17:37.492 --> 00:17:45.874 THAT WAS KNOWN AND MADE THAT HAPPEN THE POLICIES WERE ISSUED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT 180 00:17:45.874 --> 00:17:51.287 THE STEP DOWN SUCH AS HAPPENED IN PINTO IS NO LONGER LAWFUL AND PERHAPS THAT CHANGED THE 181 00:17:51.287 --> 00:17:55.942 PREMIUMS. DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: PRESUMABLY THAT'S WHAT SUBSECTION F DID 182 00:17:55.942 --> 00:17:59.894 YES. JUSTICE FASCIALE: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SITUATION WHERE ^ AN ^ AND 183 00:17:59.894 --> 00:18:07.307 EMPLOYEE INVOLVED IN A CAR ACCIDENT DRIVING ^ AN ^ AND EMPLOYER VEHICLE ACTUAL RECEIVED 184 00:18:07.307 --> 00:18:15.964 OR WAS ENTITLED TO A LIABILITY LIMITS OF THE EMPLOYER'S POLICY EVEN THE UM OR UIM LIMITS 185 00:18:15.964 --> 00:18:23.111 WERE LESS HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SITUATION LIKE THAT WITH NJAJ OR ANYTHING ELSE. 186 00:18:23.111 --> 00:18:28.936 DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: YOU'RE ASKING ME IF THE EMPLOYEE IS ALSO A TORTFEASOR. 187 00:18:28.936 --> 00:18:32.836 JUSTICE FASCIALE: NO SO THE EMPLOYEE IS INVOLVED IN A CAR ACCIDENT WITH A VEHICLE THAT'S 188 00:18:32.836 --> 00:18:40.318 EITHER UNINSURED OR UNDER INSURED AND THE INSURED'S POLICY FOR THE EMPLOYER THAT COVERS 189 00:18:40.318 --> 00:18:49.453 THE EMPLOYEE USING THE EMPLOYER'S VEHICLE HAS 15/30 UM UIM POLICY BUT A 2 MILLION DOLLAR 190 00:18:49.453 --> 00:18:56.044 LIABILITY LIMIT. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SITUATION WHERE THAT EMPLOYEE IN MY HYPOTHETICAL 191 00:18:56.044 --> 00:19:03.491 WOULD BE ENTITLED TO MOCK A CLAIM UP TO THE LIABILITY LIMIT AGAINST SDURG LET'S SAY IF 192 00:19:03.491 --> 00:19:11.315 THAT WAS THE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR THE EMPLOYER EVEN THOUGH THE LIMIT UM AND UIM WAS 15/30. 193 00:19:11.315 --> 00:19:20.878 A. IF DHOOEF YOU'RE ASKING ME IF A RESULT HAS BEEN WE'RE ADVOCATING TODAY. 194 00:19:20.878 --> 00:19:23.550 JUSTICE FASCIALE: CORRECT. DOMINIC R. DEPAMPHILIS: I'VE NOT SEEN THAT NO. 195 00:19:23.550 --> 00:19:29.358 SIMILARLY TO WHAT MR. ABANDON HAS SAID I ALSO HAVE NOT SEEN AIZATION OTHER THAN THE FACTS 196 00:19:29.358 --> 00:19:35.154 OF THESE TWO CASES WHERE THE UIM LIMITS OF THE COMMERCIAL POLICY ARE LESS THAN THE LIABILITY 197 00:19:35.154 --> 00:19:40.001 LIMITS. JUSTICE FASCIALE: IT'S USUALLY MATCHED. DOMINIC R. 198 00:19:40.001 --> 00:19:52.002 DEPAMPHILIS: AGAIN MY ANECDOTAL LOUIS A. BOVE: JUST A COUPLE QUICK POINTS 199 00:19:52.002 --> 00:19:58.406 AS THE PERSONAL LINES POLICY IN THIS BUSINESS PURSUIT SITUATION THE BUSINESS PURSUIT 200 00:19:58.406 --> 00:20:04.876 EXCLUSION IS AN EXCLUSION ON A LIABILITY COVERAGE PART IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH UM/UIM 201 00:20:04.876 --> 00:20:14.047 COVERAGE. WE ATTACHED THE STANDARD PERSONAL LINES POLICIES, APPENDIX C 1. IT'S ALSO 202 00:20:14.047 --> 00:20:22.942 NOTED AS DA CAPITAL S 1. IT IS A REGULATED FORM, PERSONAL LINES POLICIES IN NEW JERSEY 203 00:20:22.942 --> 00:20:28.268 ARE PERSONAL LINES POLICIES IN NEW JERSEY AND THEY FOLLOW THE STANDARD FORM AND THEY 204 00:20:28.268 --> 00:20:34.342 CAN'T DEVIATE FROM THAT OR D O B I WOULDN'T ALLOW NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS AND THESE LOCAL 205 00:20:34.342 --> 00:20:40.455 INSURANCE R SHIER ERS TO WRITE THESE PERSONAL LINES POLICIES SO THERE IS NO EXCLUSION 206 00:20:40.455 --> 00:20:46.876 IN FIRST PARTY BENEFITS. FIRST PARTY BENEFITS FOLLOW THE HUMAN BEING. 207 00:20:46.876 --> 00:20:57.728 IN COOK SAV VIG NONE MANY YEARS AGO THEY TALKED ABOUT HOLDING A POLICY, UM/UIM SO THE ANSWER, 208 00:20:57.728 --> 00:21:03.922 I GUESS, MADAME TO YOUR QUESTION WAS THERE IS NO BUSINESS PURSUITS EXCLUSION FOR FIRST 209 00:21:03.922 --> 00:21:10.345 PARTY BENEFITS UM/UIM, THAT SORT OF THING. JUSTICE FASCIALE: CAN I ASK YOU 210 00:21:10.345 --> 00:21:16.788 A QUESTION ABOUT FIRST PARTY UM/UIM. DO YOU KNOW IF THERE IS A COMP LIEN 211 00:21:16.788 --> 00:21:27.391 THAT THE LIEN COULD BE SATISFIED IN PART AGAINST A FIRST PARTY UM/UIM CLAIM ABOVE ABOVE 212 00:21:27.391 --> 00:21:36.759 PRECISELY IN NEW JERSEY THE WORKERS' COMP. CLAIM HAS A LEAN GENGS THE EMPLOYEES UIM, 213 00:21:36.759 --> 00:21:41.854 THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE DOUBLE BENEFITS. IT'S JUST PART OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME. IT'S 214 00:21:41.854 --> 00:21:46.939 LIKE THAT IN MANY STATES. SO JUST A COUPLE BRIEF POINTS, SO, ONE, THERE IS 215 00:21:46.939 --> 00:21:53.602 NO BUSINESS PURSUITS EXCLUSIONS FOR UM/UIM IN A STANDARD AUTO POLICY AND THAT'S PART OF THE 216 00:21:53.602 --> 00:21:56.792 RECORD. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: JUST TO SAY IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY YOU'RE 217 00:21:56.792 --> 00:22:05.311 SAYING IN PINTO HE COULDN'T IN THEORY RECOVER $100,000 FROM HIS OWN PERSONAL POLICY'S 218 00:22:05.311 --> 00:22:10.202 LIMITS HAD THE FACTS BEEN DIFFERENT AND THE ARGUMENT THAT NO YOUR PERSONAL POLICY YOU CAN 219 00:22:10.202 --> 00:22:17.928 NEVER GET UM/UIM IF YOU'RE DRIVING A COMPANY VEHICLE IS INCORRECT. ABOVE ABOVE IT'S 220 00:22:17.928 --> 00:22:25.816 INCORRECT INCONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARD POLICY PERSONAL LINES. JUSTICE 221 00:22:25.816 --> 00:22:30.706 PATTERSON: MR. PINTO ABOVE ABOVE MR. PINT DOE GOT $100,000. JUSTICE PATTERSON: 222 00:22:30.706 --> 00:22:37.095 IN THE SAME LAW SAME LINES PERSONAL LINES POLICY AND THE REFORMED ABOVE ABOVE HE WOULD HAVE 223 00:22:37.095 --> 00:22:43.128 GOTTEN A MILLION. JUSTICE PATTERSON: HE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN A MILLION. 224 00:22:43.128 --> 00:22:51.665 UNDER THIS POLICY PIN TOE WOULD GET A HUNDRED ABOVE ABOVE UNDER TRAVIESO. 225 00:22:51.665 --> 00:22:56.859 JUSTICE PATTERSON: YES. ABOVE ABOVE IN TRAVIESO HE WOULD GET THE DECLARED UM/UIM LIMITS. 226 00:22:56.859 --> 00:23:01.500 THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE TORT-FEASOR LIMITS. JUSTICE PATTERSON: SO THE 227 00:23:01.500 --> 00:23:07.928 UIM ISSUE THAT HAPPENED IN PINTO WOULD NOT APPLY, ABOVE ABOVE HERE HE WOULD GET THE UM 228 00:23:07.928 --> 00:23:13.364 LIMIT. HE IS NOT STEPPED DOWN BASED ON WHAT MR. TRAVIESO'S PERSONAL LINE POLICY BECAUSE 229 00:23:13.364 --> 00:23:20.894 THAT'S ILLEGAL UNDERSTAND THE SCOTT AMENDMENT YOU WOULD GET THE UM BENEFIT. 230 00:23:20.894 --> 00:23:25.316 JUSTICE WAINER APTER: THE 15 IS LOWER THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND SO IF HE HAD A PERSONAL 231 00:23:25.316 --> 00:23:32.119 -- IF HIS PESHL LINE POLICY HAD A HUNDRED, WOULD HE GET THAT ABOVE ABOVE YES, BUT YOU 232 00:23:32.119 --> 00:23:37.998 CAN'T STACK SO HE WOULDN'T GET $115,000. JUSTICE WAINER APTER: UNDERSTOOD. 233 00:23:37.998 --> 00:23:43.179 JUSTICE PATTERSON: LET'S STICK WITH PINTO FOR A SECOND. IN THE UIM CONTEXT 234 00:23:43.179 --> 00:23:48.669 300 CAME INTO PLAY BECAUSE THAT DETERMINED THE TORT FEESZ SORE ABOVE ABOVE THAT WAS THE 235 00:23:48.669 --> 00:23:52.758 STEP DOIN LIMIT. JUSTICE PATTERSON: BY VIRTUE OF THAT THE TORT-FEASOR WAS 236 00:23:52.758 --> 00:23:58.581 NOT UNDER INSURED ABOVE ABOVE BECAUSE OF THE DEFINITION OF UNDER INSURED UNIQUE TO NEW 237 00:23:58.581 --> 00:24:02.877 JERSEY. JUSTICE PATTERSON: IT WAS RELEVANT, ABOVE ABOVE UM, THERE ISN'T 238 00:24:02.877 --> 00:24:08.008 THAT ISSUE OF WHAT THE TORT-FEASOR ISSUE IS P AND WHETHER YOU QUALIFY, IF YOU ARE HIT 239 00:24:08.008 --> 00:24:13.983 BY AN UNINSURED MOTORIST YOU GET THE UM LIMIT ON YOUR PERSONAL LINES POLICY AND YOU GET 240 00:24:13.983 --> 00:24:18.943 IT -- YOU CAN'T STOP IT YOU GET IT UNDER THE COMMERCIAL POLICY BECAUSE ONE FOLLOWS THE 241 00:24:18.943 --> 00:24:25.062 PERSON AND THE OTHER YOU ARE AN OCCUPANTS INSURED UNDER A COMMERCIAL AUTO POLICIES UM, 242 00:24:25.062 --> 00:24:31.444 UIM, AGAIN A D O B I APPROVED FORM. JUSTICE HOFFMAN: IN PINTO YOU ARE SAYING 243 00:24:31.444 --> 00:24:36.255 HE WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN THE HUNDRED AVAILABLE IN HIS OWN POLICY AND A HUNDRED AVAILABLE 244 00:24:36.255 --> 00:24:44.428 FROM THE COMPANY ABOVE ABOVE BECAUSE NEW JERSEY PROHIBITS STACKING OF UM/UIM LIMITS. 245 00:24:44.428 --> 00:24:47.202 JUSTICE HOFFMAN: I GOT IT. ABOVE ABOVE THE OTHER THING ABOUT THIS FAIRNESS, 246 00:24:47.202 --> 00:24:55.628 YOU KNOW, I JUST TOOK A QUICK ABOVE ABOVE IF I WAS THE TJ MAX OF CALIFORNIA ONE OF THE 247 00:24:55.628 --> 00:25:01.605 HUNDREDS OF INSUREDS UNDER THE ZURICH POLICY THAT IS AN LLC SO IF I WAS A MEMBER OF THE 248 00:25:01.605 --> 00:25:09.827 LLC I WOULD GET, IF I HAD A CAR IN NEW JERSEY, I WOULD GET THE SAME BENEFIT THAT MY EMPLOYEE 249 00:25:09.827 --> 00:25:17.872 WOULD GET. JUSTICE PATTERSON: 15/30 ABOVE. LOUIS A. BOVE: 250 00:25:17.872 --> 00:25:22.636 YES, YOU MAY VIEW THAT AS UNFAIR AS A PRACTICAL MATTER BUT THAT'S WHAT THE LEGISLATURE 251 00:25:22.636 --> 00:25:28.161 WANTED TO SET AS A MANDATORY MINIMUM NOW IT IS 35. THE WISDOM OF THAT I LEAVE TO SOMEONE 252 00:25:28.161 --> 00:25:34.477 ELSE BUT THE FACT IS THERE IS NO DISPARITY HERE SO I AM NOT SURE UNFAIRNESS. I AM THE 253 00:25:34.477 --> 00:25:43.822 OWNER OF TJ MAX AS A MEMBER, RIGHT, OF THE LLC I AM DRIVING A TJMAXX CAR WHICH WAS LIKELY. 254 00:25:43.822 --> 00:25:47.671 JUSTICE PATTERSON: THE UNFAIRNESS ARGUMENT THAT WAS ARTICULATED BOUND DOWN 255 00:25:47.671 --> 00:25:55.743 FOR THE AMICUS IS THAT EMPLOYEES DO NOT HAVE BARGAINING POWER IN THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR 256 00:25:55.743 --> 00:26:01.679 COMMERCIAL INSURANCE. LOUIS A. BOVE: WELL, YES, THEY ARE NOT THE BUYER. 257 00:26:01.679 --> 00:26:03.755 JUSTICE PATTERSON: THEY ARE NOT THE BUYER. LOUIS A. BOVE: 258 00:26:03.755 --> 00:26:10.302 THEY HAVE A BARGAINING POWER IN A PERSONAL LINES IF THEY WANT TO BUY MORE FIRST PARTY. 259 00:26:10.302 --> 00:26:15.139 I HAVE PERSONAL POLICY AND AN ACCESS SITTING OVER IT. I CAN'T GET FOR MYSELF MORE THAN 260 00:26:15.139 --> 00:26:23.466 A MILLION ACCESS UM/UIM I AM A RESIDENT OF FLORIDA, BUT THE POINT BEING YOU CAN ONLY BUY 261 00:26:23.466 --> 00:26:28.661 SO MUCH INSURANCE COVERAGE. COMMERCIAL, YOU CAN BUY MORE. I GUESS THE OTHER 262 00:26:28.661 --> 00:26:34.735 POINT I WOULD MAKE IS AGAIN, ZURICH WASN'T EVEN REQUIRED TO OFFER, LET ALONE PROVIDE THESE 263 00:26:34.735 --> 00:26:42.173 LIMITS AND THEY CAN'T FORCE THEIR POLICY HOLDER TO SELECT HIGHER UM/UIM LIMB IT IS. THEY 264 00:26:42.173 --> 00:26:46.678 WOULD LIKE THEM TO, I AM SURE BECAUSE THEY WOULD GET MORE PREMIUM DOLLARS, BUT THEY CANNOT. 265 00:26:46.678 --> 00:26:52.860 JUST TWO OTHER QUICK POINTS, REALLY ONE, SO, I WAS THINKING HERE WHEN YOU WERE 266 00:26:52.860 --> 00:27:00.629 ASKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IS THIS AN ANOMALOUS POLICY, I DID ARGUE A FLEET POLICY IN THE 267 00:27:00.629 --> 00:27:08.629 STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN FEDERAL COURT BEFORE -- AFTER PIN TOE WAS DECIDED BUT BEFORE THE 268 00:27:08.629 --> 00:27:18.394 SCOTT AMENDMENT IT WAS A DISTRICT COURT IN NEWARK IN CASE WAS C H A CLOP C H A C O N. 269 00:27:18.394 --> 00:27:26.857 I AM PRETTY SURE IT WAS JUDGE SHER RID DAN, BUT BOY IT WAS SO LONG AGO, 18, #19D YEARS 270 00:27:26.857 --> 00:27:33.396 AGO SO I ARGUED IT. I ARGUED THE SAME SELECTION FORM IN FRONT OF JUDGE MAK HUE WHO SITS 271 00:27:33.396 --> 00:27:38.358 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AGAIN 272 00:27:38.358 --> 00:27:42.678 DIFFERENT INSUREDS, DIFFERENT POLICYHOLDERS, THE SAME FORM. THEN I WOULD POINT 273 00:27:42.678 --> 00:27:47.266 OUT TO YOU WHILE THEY ARE NOT HERE TODAY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ARGUING THE INSURANCE LEAGUE 274 00:27:47.266 --> 00:27:54.063 OR THE, YOU KNOW, THE INSURER'S ASSOCIATION FILED AN AMICUS HERE. IF THE ZURICH 275 00:27:54.063 --> 00:28:00.192 POLICY WAS UNIQUE TO ZURICH OR AN ANOMALY THE REST OF THE INDUSTRY WOULDN'T BE WATCHING 276 00:28:00.192 --> 00:28:09.479 THIS CASE AND HIRE ROBINSON AND COAL TO FILE AN AMICUS, I AM SURE. THERE IS NOTHING UNUSUAL 277 00:28:09.479 --> 00:28:15.976 OR UNTOWARD ABOUT A FLEET POLICY THAT HAS UM/UIM COVERAGE VARYING FROM STATE TO STATE 278 00:28:15.976 --> 00:28:21.816 AND THAT THEY SELECT THE LOWER LIMITS OR THE, THE -- WHEN REQUIRED. THERE ARE 279 00:28:21.816 --> 00:28:31.912 MANY, MANY POLICIES THAT HAVE NO UM/UIM -- CORPORATE POLICIES THAT HAVE NO UM/UIM 280 00:28:31.912 --> 00:28:36.176 POLICIES THERE IS A RECORD HERE BEFORE THE COURT WHERE THE STATE DOESN'T REQUIRE IT. IF 281 00:28:36.176 --> 00:28:41.979 THE STATE DOESN'T REQUIRE IT TJ MAX DIDN'T BUY IT. JUST FOR THE RECORD AND, AGAIN, IN 282 00:28:41.979 --> 00:28:52.954 THE RECORD, TJ MAX WILL LUS TOWER WAT SON THE THIRDS LARGEST BROKER ON THE PLANET THEY ARE 283 00:28:52.954 --> 00:28:58.428 HIENDZ MARCH SHALL AND AON ONLY. THESE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING THEY KNOW HOW 284 00:28:58.428 --> 00:29:06.957 TO MONITOR RISK OR BUY POLICIES, AGAIN, I AM ASKING IN TRAVIESO THAT YOU REVERSE ON THE 285 00:29:06.957 --> 00:29:13.593 LAW DIVISION JUDGE'S DECISION THAT OUR POLICY WAS REFORMED TO PROVIDE ONE MILLION UM/UIM 286 00:29:13.593 --> 00:29:19.282 LIMITS CONSISTENT WITH OUR LIABILITY LIMITS ON THE POLICY AND WITH THAT SAID IF THERE IS 287 00:29:19.282 --> 00:29:22.286 NO MORE QUESTIONS. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. I 288 00:29:22.286 --> 00:29:27.452 WANT TO THANK ALL COUNSEL. WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE VERY FINE ARGUMENT PRESENTED ON BOTH 289 00:29:27.452 --> 00:30:15.310 SIDES THE COURT IS IN RECESS. (TIME NOTED: 12:04 p.m.) # 2026, ACDL, 2026, 290 00:30:15.310 --> 00:30:56.083 2026 PARITY, DISPARITY KRIFRM, NR, NRS PAB BEE AS, HAB YUS, HAB YAS, HAB YUS, HAIB YUS, 291 00:30:56.083 --> 00:30:59.083 HAIB YAS