The Appellate Division ruled in Repossession Specialists v. Geico Insurance Co., A-23712-10T1 (App. Div. Jan. 12, 2012), that a lawsuit brought against a repo company by a car owner who was injured while trying to retrieve personal items from a vehicle that was being towed did not trigger coverage under the omnibus provisions of the owner's personal auto policy.  The Appellate Division ruled that repossession was not a permitted use and that the repo company was therefore not entitled to seek coverage as an additional insured under the owner's auto policy.  Although the right of repossession was set forth in a contract that the named insured had entered into, the court emphasized the inability of the owner to revoke this right, declaring that "use as of right pursuant to irrevocable authority is inconsistent with the concept of permissions."

Michael Aylward
Morrison Mahoney
Boston, MA
maylward@morrisonmahoney.com

NEW JERSEY—E&O/RELATED ACTS EXCLUSIONS

A federal district court ruled in Gladstone v. Westport Insurance Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132100 (D. N.J. Nov. 16, 2011), that a "related acts" exclusion which provides that multiple claims arising out of a single wrongful act or a series of related or continuing wrongful acts shall be deemed to have been asserted when a claim is first made precluded coverage for a lawsuit brought during the policy period that was related to a lawyer's representation of numerous parties in a zoning ordinance matter that had prompted litigation by other clients prior to the policy period.