Melick v. Stanley

FRANK H. MELICK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JAMES L. STANLEY AND JAMES L. STANLEY, JR., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Argued October 5, 1981.

Decided October 21, 1981.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · decided 1981-10-21

Relies on State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Estate of Simmons · 174 N.J. Super. 271 - Melick v. Stanley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-10-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2001

12 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *129 Before Judges KING and POLOW.

¶2Robert P. Clark argued the cause for appellant (Clark, Gertler & Hanna attorneys).

¶3Anthony D. Buonadonna argued the cause for respondents (Tusco, Gruccio, Pepper, Buonadonna, Giovinazzi & Butler attorneys).

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The summary judgment granted in favor of defendants is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Miller's reported opinion. Melick v. Stanley,174 N.J. Super. 271 (Law Div. 1980). We need not consider whether Nationwide's subrogation interests would be preserved if Delaware law were not applicable, id. at 277-78 since we agree with Judge Miller's conclusion that Delaware law does apply. "[T]he place of the contract will govern the determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties under the insurance policy." State Farm, etc., Ins. Co. v. Simmons' Estate,84 N.J. 28, 37 (1980).

¶6Affirmed.