This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any Ennhanced. Robert M. Brigantic, on the brief. Plaintiff Rob K. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that defendant American European Insurance Group AEIGthrough its related entity defendant Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company Rutgerswrongfully denied coverage for a claim made by an employee of one of plaintiff's subcontractors.

The claim arose when the employee was injured at Companj job site that was under plaintiff's supervision. Plaintiff Cpmpany the claim was covered by the commercial general liability policy defendants issued to plaintiff.

The trial judge, relying upon the policy's express language and representations made by plaintiff in its application for insurance, determined that defendants properly denied coverage.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the judge ignored plaintiff's reasonable expectation of coverage, as established by the evidence presented to the jury, and failed to Enhancd construe the policy's exclusion of coverage for injuries to Insuranve and employees of contractors.

We disagree and affirm. The facts adduced at trial by plaintiff are summarized as follows. Plaintiff was formed in by its principal, Robert Krakowiak,1 an assistant portfolio manager at a financial institution, to perform maintenance on Rutgers Enhanced Insurance Company properties held by a coworker. During the ensuing years, the nature of plaintiff's business expanded to include home renovations and, ultimately, new construction.

Plaintiff applied for general liability insurance in early and represented to its agent and defendants that plaintiff had one employee, did not hire subcontractors, and only performed remodeling work as compared Clmpany structural work. Krakowiak understood that this information impacted the type of coverage plaintiff required. Based on that information, Rutgers issued a general liability policy to plaintiff. Plaintiff renewed the policy from year to year without ever informing defendants of any change in plaintiff's operations.

The policy that defendants issued each year contained an exclusion entitled "Exclusion of Injury to Employees, Contractors and Employees of Contractors.

Krakowiak testified at trial that he understood a claim made by an injured employee of a subcontractor would be excluded from coverage, although he admitted that he did not Rutgers Enhanced Insurance Company the policy "carefully enough. The underlying claim occurred in Junewhen an employee of plaintiff's plumbing sub-contractor was allegedly injured at one of plaintiff's job sites.

The injured worker sued plaintiff in New York. Plaintiff gave notice Vermont Electric Company the claim to defendants, who denied coverage, citing, among other bases, the exclusion for employees of contractors Enhances above. Defendants' denial of coverage resulted in plaintiff filing the complaint in this matter.

Plaintiff's complaint was tried before a jury and presided over by Judge Francis B. At the end of the plaintiff's case, defendants moved for dismissal.

Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the evidence established that it had a reasonable expectation of coverage. Judge Schultz granted the motion and placed his reasons on the Insurace. The judge began by setting forth the standard for determining a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule bincluding the requirement that all favorable inferences be afforded to the nonmoving party.

The judge rejected plaintiff's contention that it had a reasonable expectation of coverage, as Krakowiak did not read the policy, nor offer any proof that "anything in the policy caused him to believe he had coverage for bodily injury claims made by [a subcontractor's] employees at the work site," or that defendants had led him to believe as much. The judge also pointed out that plaintiff never advised defendants that it was operating a business that included the participation of subcontractors and their employees.

Rather, the application supported the conclusion that Krakowiak "was [running] a one man operation. Had the plaintiff submitted an application, indicating that [it] had some contractors that[, it] was doing structural work, that [it] had gross sales of betweenand a million, if each house sold for half a million[,] and [it] did one or two a year[;] had [plaintiff] put in Enhancrd that [it] had gross sales of half a million to a million that [it] was using subcontractors, then the plaintiff could maintain an argument to the effect of well, I told the insurance company.

I told Rutgers Enhanced Insurance Company [broker]. That I had other people on the job site. And[,] therefore, I was entitled to reasonably expect that the policy would cover me for that. Good Car Company Michigan [it] doesn't. Plaintiff does not contend that any applications were given other than the ones I just read.

There's nothing even in the application that would entitle the plaintiff to say [its] reasonable expectations were not fulfilled by the exclusion. The exclusion was consistent with [its] own application. I should also point out that the independent producer. Judge Schultz also noted that the premium plaintiff paid was for a "bare bones" policy that was consistent with plaintiff's application, so that it too could not have given rise to any "reasonable expectation" of coverage for the claim.

Looking at that exclusion, I can say that every single word in the exclusion is and can be understood by anyone picking up this document Insuranxe being able to read it.

Simply put, there was no coverage for injuries sustained by a worker on the job site. So the plaintiff's case is dismissed in its entirety. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the judge misapplied the standard for consideration of a motion filed pursuant to Rule b and that he failed to strictly construe the disputed exclusion against defendants.

In our review of a trial judge's grant of a motion for an Zf Company Wiki dismissal at the end of plaintiff's case, R. ADS Assocs. Oritani Sav. Bank, N. A motion for involuntary dismissal is premised "on the ground that upon the facts and upon the law the [non-moving party] has Rutgers Enhanced Insurance Company no right to relief.

The motion shall be denied if "'the evidence, together with the legitimate inferences therefrom, could sustain a judgment in favor' of the party opposing the motion.

Anastasia, 55 N. If a court, "'accepting as true all the evidence which supports the position of the party defending against the motion and according him the benefit of all inferences which can reasonably and legitimately be deduced therefrom,' finds that 'reasonable minds could differ,' then 'the motion must be denied.

Ricca, N. Under this standard, we "must examine the evidence, together with legitimate inferences which can be drawn therefrom, and determine whether the evidence could have sustained a judgment in favor of the party who opposed the motion. Bell Tel. Applying this standard, we find plaintiff's arguments to be without Ehhanced merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Schultz in his oral decision, Kernel Company Brain we Rutgers Enhanced Insurance Company that even applying Compsny liberal principles favoring the insured that guide our review of coverage interpretation disputes, see Selective Ins.

Hudson E. Pain Mgmt. In any event, there was no need to interpret the clear language of the exclusion. See Flomerfelt v. Cardiello, N. Chunmuang, N. We are somewhat bewildered by this argument since the matter was indeed brought before a jury for trial.

For Bk Company reason, we Kansas Electric Company not consider plaintiff's argument. Enter your email. ROB K. A-0 ROB K. Louis J. Santore argued the cause for appellant. The judge concluded by stating Looking at that exclusion, I can say that every single word in the exclusion is and can be understood by anyone picking up this document and being able to read it.

Justia Legal Resources. Find a Lawyer. Law Students. US Federal Law. US State Law. Other Databases. Legal Marketing.

Property & Casualty Insurance for Businesses AEIG

AEIG is a business-to-business insurance company that works with a select group of agents who share our commitment to providing the best products and services, at a competitive price. Our agent partners are located throughout the Northeast, New England and Northern Mid-Atlantic stateswork with businesses of all types and sizes to find the right ...…

About American European Insurance Group

Policies are underwritten by AE Underwriters Agency, Inc., on behalf of Falls Lake National Insurance Company, rated A (Excellent), Stable Outlook, Financial Size IX by A.M. Best Company, Inc. and American European Insurance Company, Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company, rated B (Fair), Stable Outlook, Financial Size VII by A.M. Best Company, Inc.…

Reviews :: Insuratings - Insurance Company Ratings ...

Nachum Stein, is the President & CEO of Rutgers Enhanced Insurance Co which was founded in 2002. Rutgers Enhanced Insurance Co primarily deals with insurance. Rutgers Enhanced Insurance Co is affiliated with American European Insurance Group. If you have experience with Rutgers Enhanced Insurance Co, we ask that you leave your reviews below to help inform other shoppers of your …1.4/5(1.1K)…

Rutgers Enhanced Insurance Company NAIC: 11245 2250 …

Founded in 2002, Rutgers Enhanced Ins. Co (REIC) was formed to write private passenger automobile insurance in the State of New Jersey. In 2007, the line of business ran off and was sold to Palisades Insurance Company. REIC is directly wholly owned by American European Insurance Company, but retains its license to do business.…