Odolecki v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
New Jersey Supreme Court
264 A.2d 38 (1970)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company (Hartford) (defendant) insured Kathryn Zylka under an automobile-insurance policy that contained a standard omnibus clause. Michael Zylka, Zylka’s son, drove his mother’s car with her permission. However, Zylka expressly forbade Michael from letting anyone else drive the vehicle. Michael disobeyed this prohibition and loaned Zylka’s car to his friend, Douglas Odolecki (plaintiff), who promptly wrecked the car and injured several individuals. When Hartford refused to indemnify Odolecki against these individuals’ personal-injury claims, Odolecki sued to have himself declared an additional insured under Zylka’s policy. The trial court entered judgment for Hartford on the basis of controlling precedents. Before an intermediate court could hear Odolecki’s appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted certiorari in order to review and reconsider those precedents.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Proctor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
