Kieffer v. High Point Insurance Co., 2011 N.J. Super. LEXIS 172 (2011)

Where it explicitly excluded diminution in value from coverage, an insurance policy's exclusionary provision was unambiguous and did not violate public policy.

None of the language in any of the three insurance policies was ambiguous where they explicitly excluded diminution in value. It is not the role of the courts to rewrite the agreement, giving the insured a better deal than the one they purchased. The court rejected the argument that because the policies broadly defined coverage, they were to be characterized as "all risk policies." The specificity of the exclusionary provisions was controlling. The court also rejected the argument that diminution in value exclusions violate public policy.

Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2011