Court Opinion

ID: 9636684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:39:04.633638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:55.932315
License: Public Domain

Justice ALBIN,
concurring.
I concur in Justice Long’s opinion that Prudential did not adequately convey to Queenie Thomas, its insured, the policy changes to her UM/UIM coverage. I write separately to give additional reasons for affirming the judgment of the Appellate Division. The UM/UIM coverage suggested in the insurance policy’s declaration page was at odds with the detailed information Thomas received in the blizzard of documents provided by Prudential. I have no doubt that a reasonably intelligent insured reading the declaration page in this case would have been misled *10as to the UM/UIM coverage policy limits. I am, therefore, in full accord with the Appellate Division’s determination that Thomas was entitled to the coverage that she reasonably expected under the policy, particularly because Prudential failed to provide her with succinct and accurate information on the declaration page.
Our case law recognizes that “[a] personal automobile insurance policy is a bulky document, arcane and abstruse in the extreme to the uninitiated, unversed and, therefore, typical policyholder.” Lehrhoff v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 271 N.J.Super. 340, 346, 638 A.2d 889 (App.Div.1994); see also Doto v. Russo, 140 N.J. 544, 555, 659 A.2d 1371 (1995). In Lehrhoff, supra, Judge Pressler, writing for the appellate panel, stressed the “signal importance” of the declaration page in “defin[ing] the insured’s reasonable expectations of coverage.” 271 N.J.Super. at 346-47, 638 A.2d 889. The Lehrhoff panel concluded that
it is the declaration page, the one page of the policy tailored to the particular insured and not merely boilerplate, which must be deemed to define coverage and the insured’s expectation of coverage. And ... [the] reasonable expectations of coverage raised by the declaration page cannot be contradicted by the policy’s boilerplate unless the declaration page itself clearly so warns the insured.
[Id. at 347, 638 A.2d 889.]
We quoted the language above with approval in Zacarias v. Allstate Ins. Co., 168 N.J. 590, 602, 775 A.2d 1262 (2001). We noted that we “share[d] the sentiments expressed by the Appellate Division in Lehrhoff in respect of the importance of the declarations sheet.” Ibid. We also “emphasize[d] ... that the one page most likely to be read and understood by the insured is the declarations sheet.” Id. at 603, 775 A.2d 1262. In that regard, we “advised [insurers] to explore ways to incorporate as much information as may be reasonably included in the declarations sheet.” Id. at 603-04, 775 A.2d 1262. Last year, in President v. Jenkins, we asserted again that we “place particular emphasis on the declarations page when determining the reasonable expectations of the insured.” 180 N.J. 550, 565, 853 A.2d 247 (2004) (citing Zacarias, supra, 168 N.J. at 602-03, 775 A.2d 1262; Lehrhoff, supra, 271 N.J.Super. at 346-47, 638 A.2d 889).
In applying those principles to this case, I believe that the average insured would reach completely different conclusions regarding the UM/UIM coverage limits in Thomas’s policy depend*11ing upon whether she read the declaration page or the fine print on the policy amendment that came enclosed with a volume of other material. Under the terms of her original insurance policy, Thomas and each occupant of her insured vehicle had up to $100,000 of uninsured motorist coverage, with a total coverage cap of $300,000 for each accident. The declaration page provided Thomas with her “policy limits, coverages, and premiums” regarding uninsured motorists:
COVERAGES LIMITS PREMIUMS
Uninsured Motorists
Bodily Injury
Each Person $100,000 $232
Each Accident $300,000
After Prudential amended the UM/UIM policy limits, Thomas’s coverage for non-relative occupants injured in her car was reduced to no more than $15,000 per person, with a total of $30,000 in coverage per accident. On three separate occasions after that policy amendment, Prudential issued to Thomas new declaration pages that did not reflect the significant restriction in her UM7 UIM coverage, leading Thomas to believe that the original coverage limits still applied.
Nothing in the language on Thomas’s declaration page would have suggested to the average insured that a passenger in her car would be subject to a coverage limit of $15,000. The continued use of the old and unmodified declaration page was misleading because it created expectations out of line with the coverage limits detailed in the fine print of the policy.
In this case, Prudential easily could have incorporated additional information into the declaration page to ensure that Thomas had a full understanding of her coverage limits. For example, the declaration page could have read:
*12COVERAGE LIMITS PREMIUMS
Uninsured Motorists
Bodily Injury
Insured $100,000
$21
Each Accident $300,000
Resident Relative
w/o auto policy $100,000
Other persons $ 15,000
The additional steps necessary to conform the declaration page to the policy were not cumbersome. At least since Lehrhoff supra, Prudential was on notice about the particular need for accuracy on the declaration page — the one page that an insured would most likely read and comprehend. 271 N.J.Super, at 346-47, 638 A.2d 889; see also Zacarias, supra, 168 N.J. at 602, 775 A.2d 1262.
This Court has long held that “[wjhen members of the public purchase policies of insurance they are entitled to the broad measure of protection necessary to fulfill their reasonable expectations.” Kievit v. Loyal Protective Life Ins. Co., 34 N.J. 475, 482, 170 A.2d 22 (1961). “They should not be subjected to technical encumbrances or to hidden pitfalls and their policies should be construed liberally in their favor to the end that coverage is afforded to the full extent that any fair interpretation will allow.” Ibid, (internal quotations omitted).
Thomas was entitled to benefit from the reasonable expectations of coverage raised by the declaration page, notwithstanding the contradictory language in the policy, lost among reams of paper. Prudential is capable of drafting a clear, simple, and understandable declaration page. For those reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division.
Justice ZAZZALI joins in this opinion.

 Thomas’s premium was later reduced to $21.00.