NJ Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Third-party Complaint Against Insurer. Negligence, Gross Negligence, Recklessness Claims Are Subject to Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity Bar. All Claims—including Intentional Wrongdoing—are Excluded Under the Policy

In a unanimous decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court found Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company had no duty to defend the employer, SIR Electric LLC.

The petitioner was an employee of SIR Electric when he was injured, and he filed a workers’ compensation claim. He also filed a personal injury complaint, alleging negligence, gross negligence, recklessness and intentional wrongdoing by SIR Electric. SIR Electric tendered the defense to Hartford, who refused. SIR Electric then filed a third-party complaint against Hartford, alleging wrongful disclaimer of defense coverage.

Hartford filed a motion to dismiss SIR Electric’s complaint, which the trial judge granted. The judge noted that Hartford’s policy excluded intent-based claims. SIR Electric moved for reconsideration and filed a motion to amend its complaint to allege that Hartford’s enhanced intentional injury exclusion violated public policy. The judge denied both motions, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

The New Jersey Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. After reviewing the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act and Hartford’s policy language, the court held Hartford had no duty to defend SIR Electric. Specifically, the claims of negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness were subject to the workers’ compensation exclusivity bar and all claims, including the claim of intentional wrongdoing, were excluded under the policy. The court also cited case law and long-standing jurisprudence which supported the validity of exclusions, noting they were not against public policy.

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 1, January 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}