Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

AZTAR CORPORATION v. MARSH & McLENNAN COMPANIES, INC., A-0156-12T2. (2013)

Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Number: innjco20131003277 Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Oct. 03, 2013
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Aztar Corporation (Aztar) filed a complaint charging its insurance broker, defendant Marsh and McLennan Companies, Inc. (Marsh), with professional malpractice based upon its failure to obtain excess coverage for lost business income and business interruption expenses. On Marsh's motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that Arizona law controlled and barred the complaint as untimely filed. Su
More

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Aztar Corporation (Aztar) filed a complaint charging its insurance broker, defendant Marsh and McLennan Companies, Inc. (Marsh), with professional malpractice based upon its failure to obtain excess coverage for lost business income and business interruption expenses. On Marsh's motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that Arizona law controlled and barred the complaint as untimely filed. Subsequently, the court denied Aztar's motion for reconsideration, and this appeal followed. Substantially for the reasons Judge Kane set forth in comprehensive written opinions of April 10 and August 23, 2012, we affirm. We have considered Aztar's claims of error and found them lacking sufficient merit to require discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer