AZTAR CORPORATION v. MARSH MCLENNAN COMPANIES INC MARSH INC MARSH USA INC (2013)

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

AZTAR CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC., MARSH, INC. and MARSH USA, INC., Defendants–Respondents.

DOCKET NO. A–0156–12T2

Decided: October 03, 2013

Before Judges Grall, Koblitz and Accurso.

Douglas E. Motzenbecker argued the cause for appellant (Gordon Rees, LLP, attorneys; Mr. Motzenbecker, of counsel and on the brief; Daniel J. DiMuro, on the brief). Eric J. Van Vugt (Quarles & Brady, LLP) of the Wisconsin bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for respondents (Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, LLP and Mr. Van Vugt, attorneys; Gerald J. Corcoran and Mr. Van Vugt, on the brief).

Plaintiff Aztar Corporation (Aztar) filed a complaint charging its insurance broker, defendant Marsh and McLennan Companies, Inc. (Marsh), with professional malpractice based upon its failure to obtain excess coverage for lost business income and business interruption expenses. On Marsh's motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that Arizona law controlled and barred the complaint as untimely filed. Subsequently, the court denied Aztar's motion for reconsideration, and this appeal followed. Substantially for the reasons Judge Kane set forth in comprehensive written opinions of April 10 and August 23, 2012, we affirm. We have considered Aztar's claims of error and found them lacking sufficient merit to require discussion in a written opinion.

R. 2:11–3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network