Case Name: CONCETTA MAROTTA PLAINTIFF, v. NEW JERSEY AUTOMOBILE FULL INSURANCE UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, BY AND THROUGH ITS SERVICING CARRIER LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANTS; NEW JERSEY AUTOMOBILE FULL INSURANCE UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, BY AND THROUGH ITS SERVICING CARRIER, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ANTHONY J. MAROTTA CONCETTA MAROTTA INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. (A/K/A CRUM & FORSTER PERSONAL INSURANCE), AND THE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. (A/K/A FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANIES), DEFENDANTS, AND JACK BERK AND EILEEN BERK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1996-06-11
Citations: 144 N.J. 325
Docket Number: 
Parties: CONCETTA MAROTTA PLAINTIFF, v. NEW JERSEY AUTOMOBILE FULL INSURANCE UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, BY AND THROUGH ITS SERVICING CARRIER LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANTS. NEW JERSEY AUTOMOBILE FULL INSURANCE UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, BY AND THROUGH ITS SERVICING CARRIER, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ANTHONY J. MAROTTA CONCETTA MAROTTA INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. (A/K/A CRUM & FORSTER PERSONAL INSURANCE), AND THE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. (A/K/A FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANIES), DEFENDANTS, AND JACK BERK AND EILEEN BERK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 325–326

Head Matter:
676 A.2d 1064
CONCETTA MAROTTA PLAINTIFF, v. NEW JERSEY AUTOMOBILE FULL INSURANCE UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, BY AND THROUGH ITS SERVICING CARRIER LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANTS. NEW JERSEY AUTOMOBILE FULL INSURANCE UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, BY AND THROUGH ITS SERVICING CARRIER, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ANTHONY J. MAROTTA CONCETTA MAROTTA INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. (A/K/A CRUM & FORSTER PERSONAL INSURANCE), AND THE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. (A/K/A FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANIES), DEFENDANTS, AND JACK BERK AND EILEEN BERK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Argued April 30, 1996 —
Decided June 11, 1996.
Eric S. Plaum argued the cause for appellant.
Laurie Harrold Rozzo argued the cause for respondent (Slimm & Goldberg, attorneys).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 280 N.J.Super. 525, 656 A.2d 20 (1995).
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN and COLEMAN — 7.
Opposed — None.