General Accident Ins. Co. v. Mortara

Summary

The court held that a dispute over whether an underinsured motorist policy provides coverage is governed by contract and insurance choice-of-law principles, not tort principles. Applying those principles, the court concluded that Connecticut law governed because Connecticut was the principal location of the insured risk and New Jersey's interests were insufficient to overcome that presumption. Because Connecticut law required exhaustion of the tortfeasor's policy limits and the defendant had not exhausted them, the arbitration award was properly vacated.