Aztar Corp. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos.

Full title: AZTAR CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES…

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Oct 3, 2013

DOCKET NO. A-0156-12T2 (App. Div. Oct. 3, 2013)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-0156-12T2

2013-10-03

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

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).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Before Judges Grall, Koblitz and Accurso.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. L-4270-10.

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). PER CURIAM

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.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION