Case Name: FLORENCE LeFELT AND REUBEN LeFELT, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. WASILI NASAROW, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1962-10-29
Citations: 76 N.J. Super. 576
Docket Number: 
Parties: FLORENCE LeFELT AND REUBEN LeFELT, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. WASILI NASAROW, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 576–576

Head Matter:
FLORENCE LeFELT AND REUBEN LeFELT, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. WASILI NASAROW, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued October 22, 1962
Decided October 29, 1962.
Before Judges Coneord, Gaulkin and Kilkenny.
Mr. Samuel Doan argued the cause for appellants {Messrs. Stalter, Doan & DeYoe, attorneys for appellant Aetna Insurance Company; Mr. James E. McLeod, attorney for appellant The Phoenix Insurance Company; Mr. Aaron Dines, on the brief).
Mr. Archie Elkins argued the cause for respondents {Mr. Robert A. Elkins, on the brief).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Kolovsky in the Law Division. LeFelt v. Nasarow, 71 N. J. Super. 538 (Law Div. 1962).