# Sears Mortgage Corp. v. Rose

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · July 29, 1993 · 134 N.J. 326

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752047

## Case

- **Full name:** Sears Mortgage Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael Rose and Emery Kaiser, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Mrs. Michael Rose, Wife of Michael Rose; Mrs. Emery Kaiser, Wife of Emery Kaiser; General Investment Corp., a Corporation of New Jersey; Theodore Janulis & Helen Janulis; Stanley H. Sprague; Mor-Bach-Kaslander Co., Inc., a N.J. Corp.; Del’s Electric Inc.; Turner Lumber Company, Inc.; National Siding Corp., a N.J. Corp.; Lakeview Condominium Association, Defendants, v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, and Joseph F. Gillen and Trw, Third-Party Defendants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** July 29, 1993
- **Citations:** 134 N.J. 326; 634 A.2d 74; 1993 N.J. LEXIS 739
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Garibaldi
- **Judges:** Handler, Garibaldi
- **Cited by:** 184 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752047

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that a title insurance company was liable for a theft committed by its designated closing attorney even though the attorney was retained to represent the purchaser
- noting that implied actual authority “may be inferred from the nature or extent of the function to be performed, the general course of conducting the business, or from particular circumstances in the case” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- observing “[n]ormally, insurance purchasers are expected to read their policies” and “ ‘the law may fairly impose upon [them] such restrictions, conditions and limitations as the average insured would ascertain from such reading.’ ”
- observing that courts routinely consider “awareness of the risk and the elements of foreseeability of loss in their consideration of liability based on agency principles”

## Opinion text

GARIBALDI, J.,
dissenting.
I would affirm, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Shebell’s opinion for the Appellate Division, reported at 257 N.J.Super. 33 , 607 A.2d 1327 (1992).
For reversal and reinstatement — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices HANDLER, O’HERN, and STEIN — 4.
For affirmance — Justices CLIFFORD and GARIBALDI — 2.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752047. Public record. Not legal advice.