In the Matter of the Arbitration between Allstate Insurance Company, and Kathleen Stolarz, Respondents New Jersey…

Summary

Judge Hancock, Jr. dissents from the Court of Appeals majority, arguing that the controlling New York decision in Matter of United Community Insurance Co. v. Mucatel applies and that the reduction‑in‑coverage clause is void as misleading. He maintains that a conflict of laws exists and that the Appellate Division correctly applied a grouping‑of‑contacts analysis to apply New York law. The dissent would affirm the Appellate Division’s judgment and reject the majority’s reliance on the insurance regulator’s regulation and on lex loci contractus. The overall case was reversed by the majority, but this opinion does not change that outcome.