Case Name: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., A/K/A INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, A NEW JERSEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. COMMERCIAL UNION SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE; EXECUTIVE EXCESS LTD.; ANTONIO SUAREZ, D/B/A I.C.P.; ASSOCIATED FINANCIAL SERVICES, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION; P.P.G. INDUSTRIES, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND PUGLIESE SWIMMING POOLS CORPORATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS, AND F.T.P., INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1992-03-19
Citations: 127 N.J. 94
Docket Number: 
Parties: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., A/K/A INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, A NEW JERSEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. COMMERCIAL UNION SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE; EXECUTIVE EXCESS LTD.; ANTONIO SUAREZ, D/B/A I.C.P.; ASSOCIATED FINANCIAL SERVICES, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION; P.P.G. INDUSTRIES, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND PUGLIESE SWIMMING POOLS CORPORATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS, AND F.T.P., INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 94–95

Head Matter:
602 A.2d 733
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., A/K/A INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, A NEW JERSEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. COMMERCIAL UNION SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE; EXECUTIVE EXCESS LTD.; ANTONIO SUAREZ, D/B/A I.C.P.; ASSOCIATED FINANCIAL SERVICES, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION; P.P.G. INDUSTRIES, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND PUGLIESE SWIMMING POOLS CORPORATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS, AND F.T.P., INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Argued February 19, 1992
Decided March 19, 1992.
Robert H. Tell argued the cause for appellant (Lynch, Martin, Philibosian & Chansky, attorneys).
Glenn A. Bergenfield argued the cause for respondent (Chazkel & Bergenfield, attorneys).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Gruccio's opinion, reported at 248 N.J.Super. 468, 591 A.2d 682 (1991).
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 7.
For reversal — None.