|Legal Resource Room|

Guidelines for Captioning Cases

Table of Contents

Preface

Caption Guidelines

| Top of Page |

C1: PARTY DESIGNATIONS BELOW

(C1)    Include the trial court or agency designation used below, if any, for every party named in the caption. See Guideline C7.

    However, in criminal cases where two or more defendants have been indicted or tried together, the caption on appeal should be taken from the judgment of conviction and refer only to the defendant who is the subject of that appeal.

    Fictitious defendants may be eliminated from the caption.

     COMMENT: Almost always, this designation will be "plaintiff" or "defendant," but in some cases it will be "petitioner" or "respondent." In certain kinds of administrative appeals, the party who initiates the hearing procedure is called an "appellant" at the agency level.

EXAMPLE:    

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA,

         Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

XONU INTERCONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES,
a Maine Corporation,

        Defendant-Respondent,

and

ROGANN CONTINENTAL COMPANY, LTD.,

        Defendant,

and

CHRISTINA M. VAHLSING, JOSEPHINE M.
VAHLSING, ELIZABETH R. VAHLSING,

         Defendants/Intervenors-Respondents.

| Top of Page |

(C2)(a)    Parties who defaulted, were never served, or never made an appearance in the action below, should be included in the caption, but without any appellate designation.

(b)    Parties who are let out of the case prior to entry of final judgment by settlement, withdrawal, or dismissal, and who make no appearance on appeal, should be in the caption but need not be identified as "respondents" even though they may have been served with a notice of appeal.

(c)     Parties who don't fit into either category (C2)(a) or (C2)(b) and who are served with a notice of appeal should usually be designated as respondents even if they never filed appellate briefs, unless those parties clearly have no interest in the appeal.

        COMMENT: According to R. 2:5-1(a), a notice of appeal must be served on "all other parties who have appeared in the action." This means that all parties, except those who defaulted below, must be made parties to the appeal. This broad rule is intended to avoid the fine distinctions between a party to the action whose interests "may" be affected on appeal and one whose interests will not be. Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 1 on R. 2:5-1 (1997).

        Nevertheless, mere receipt of a notice of appeal does not require that a party be designated a respondent in the caption.

        (See example on next page.)

JOHN L. SMITH,

            Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANN ADAMS, CAROL COLLINS, and
ELLEN ECKERT,

          Defendants,

and

BETTY BAKER,

         Defendant-Respondent,

and

DEBBIE DUNN,

         Defendant-Appellant.

| Top of Page |

C3: CLOSELY RELATED OR AFFILIATED PARTIES

| Top of Page |

(C4)    List every party by name. Do not use words such as "et al." to indicate multiple parties.

EXAMPLE:

| Top of Page |

C5: INTERVENORS BELOW

EXAMPLE:        

JOHN L. SMITH,

            Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MARY J. JONES

            Defendant,

and

SANSONE, INC.,

             Defendant/Intervenor-Respondent.

| Top of Page |

C6: INTERVENORS ON APPEAL

(C6)    Parties who intervened on appeal must be included and clearly identified in the appearance section. They should not ordinarily be included in the caption. If, however, they are included in the caption, they should be separated in the caption from the other parties by a solid line. See generally R. 4:33-1, -2, -3.


EXAMPLE:

JOHN L. SMITH,

             Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MARY J. JONES,

             Defendant-Respondent.
__________________________
            
SANSONE, INC.,

             Intervenor-Respondent.

| Top of Page |

C7: NO PARTY DESIGNATIONS BELOW

(C7)    In instances in which the trial court or agency caption does not show party designations (for example, appeals from agency determinations or will contests), do not change the caption on appeal. Rather, clearly identify the appellant and respondent in the attorney appearance section.


EXAMPLE #1:

IN THE MATTER OF THE
WORLD JEEP EAGLE
___________________________________________________

            Submitted: January 2, 1995

            Before Judges Pressler, Keefe and Wefing.

            On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County.

            Smith, Jones and Wilson, attorneys for appellant World Jeep Eagle (Peter
            Draper, on the brief).

            Respondent Susan Gibson did not file a brief.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL
OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

            Submitted: January 2, 1995
            
            Before Judges Pressler, Keefe and Wefing.

            On appeal from the Department of Insurance.

            Smith, Jones and Wilson, attorneys for appellant Farmers Mutual Fire
            Assurance Association (Peter Draper, on thebrief).

            Peter Verniero, Attorney General, attorney for respondent
            Department of Insurance (Edward Jacobs, Deputy Attorney
            General, on the brief).

| Top of Page |

(C8) APPELLANT NOT IN CAPTION BELOW

(C8)    If the party who is appealing is not in the original caption (for example, an attorney who is appealing from a contempt citation or complaining about a fee award), that party should nevertheless be identified in the attorney appearance section (see example #1).

    Alternatively, the party may be added to the caption on appeal, but should be separated from the other parties by a solid line (see example #2).

EXAMPLE #1:

DAVID L. KERMIT,

            Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ABC SANITARY SERVICES, INC.,

            Defendant-Respondent.

-------------------------------------

            Submitted January 2, 1997.

            Before Judges Brochin, Kestin and Eichen.

            On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
            Essex County.

            Greenberg & Greenberg, attorneys for appellant Thomas Hale,
            Esq. (Ann Greenberg, on the brief).

            Smith, Jones & Wilson, attorneys for respondent David L.
            Kermit (David Jones, on the brief).

            Wayne Jackson, attorney for respondent ABC Sanitary
            Services, Inc.

EXAMPLE #2

DAVID L. KERMIT,

            Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ABC SANITARY SERVICES, INC.,

            Defendant-Respondent.

______________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS HALE, ESQ.,

             Appellant.

| Top of Page |

C9: AMICI CURIAE

(C9)    Parties admitted as amici curiae, either at trial or on appeal, should not be included in the caption. However, they must be included in the attorney appearance section if they have filed briefs. See Guideline A2 for examples; see generally R. 1:13-9.

| Top of Page |

C10: THIRD PARTIES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS

(C10)    The caption must reflect third-party and cross- appellant designations, if any. It is not necessary to show counterclaims and cross-claims.
    
EXAMPLE:

DENNIS DUCHAI,

            Plaintiff-Respondent/Cross-Appellant,

v.

LAKEVIEW CUSTOM COACH,
JEFF BROWN, J.R. CORELLI
ASSOCIATES, INC., and
PETE'S SERVICE CENTER,

            Defendants/Third-Party
            Plaintiffs-Appellants/
            Cross-Respondents,

v.

TILDEN COMMERCIAL ALLIANCE, INC.
AND TRW INFORMATION SERVICES,

            Third-Party Defendants.

| Top of Page |

C11: BACK-TO-BACK APPEALS

(C11)    In the case of back-to-back appeals, where only one memo is prepared, there should be two completely independent captions, with the docket number appended to each one separately. But separate appeals, even if they are back-to-back, should have separate opinions, unless they have been consolidated for opinion purposes. In such a case, the consolidation should be noted in the opinion and the caption should follow Guideline C12.

MEMO EXAMPLE (back-to-back appeals):

DURO-TEST CORPORATION,

            Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSE NODAR and JOSEPH UMBACH,

            Defendants-Appellants,

and

BANCO POPULAR de PUERTO RICO,

            Defendant-Respondent.


___________________________________

DURO-TEST CORPORATION,

            Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSE NODAR and JOSEPH UMBACH,

            Defendants-Respondents,

and

BANCO POPULAR de PUERTO RICO,

            Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________
    

            Argued [or submitted]:

            Before Judges:

            On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
            Division, Hudson County.

            Pojanowski, Iskra & Trawinski, attorneys for appellants Jose
            Nodar and Joseph Umbach in A-1234-94T5 (Timothy E. Shanley,
            of counsel and on the brief).

            Orloff, Lowenbach, Stifelman & Siegel, attorneys for
            appellant Banco Popular de Puerto Rico in A-1247-94T5            
            (Samuel Feldman, of counsel and on the brief).

            Crummy, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, attorneys
             for respondent in both appeals, Duro-Test Corporation             
            (Edward F. McTiernan, of counsel and on the briefs; John H.             
            Klock, on the briefs).

| Top of Page |

C12: CONSOLIDATED CASES

(C12)    (a) When cases are consolidated on appeal, there will be one opinion but there are usually two or more com pletely independent captions. Docket numbers should be listed together on top with the oldest number listed first. Case captions should be in the same order. In some consolidated appeals, however, there is only one caption with two docket numbers.

        (b) Cases that were consolidated in the trial court or agency should retain the same caption on appeal as was used below.

EXAMPLE:

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

            Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ROBERT COOPER,

            Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

            Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WILLIE LEE LAWSON,

            Defendant-Appellant.

| Top of Page |

C13: SPELLING OF PARTIES' NAMES

(C13)    Where there is confusion as to the spelling of a party's name, the final judgment controls in civil cases (unless that does not resolve the confusion, in which case the complaint controls). The judgment of conviction controls in criminal cases (unless that does not resolve the confusion, in which case the indictment controls). However, if there is a definite indication in the record, e.g., in the transcripts or appendices, that a name should be spelled differently, rely on that. You may need to change the caption and drop a footnote that a party was "incorrectly designated as" something else.

| Top of Page |

C14: CHANGES IN PARTY NAMES OR PARTIES

(C14)    If a party's name changes subsequent to the entry of final judgment or the party changes by reason of suc cession, death, or substitution, retain the original name unless there has been a formal substitution. If there has been a formal substitution, use the new name and drop a footnote explaining the change.
        
        EXCEPTION: There is no need for a formal substitution when a public officer sues or is sued in an official capacity and then leaves office. Court rules provide for an automatic substitution, so use the current official's name in the caption. See R. 4:34-4.

| Top of Page |

C15: ORDER OF PARTIES

(C15)    Even if the lead plaintiff or defendant is not involved in the appeal, i.e., neither a respondent nor an appellant, that party still stays "first in line." In other words, once first always first. All other parties who share exactly the same designation as that lead plaintiff or defendant should be grouped with that party. The same principle should be followed for the remainder of the parties.

         COMMENT: This means that the appellant should not automatically be made the lead plaintiff or defendant. This procedure is advisable because of the manner in which the clerk's office enters the name of the case in ACMS. Also, this procedure will preserve the general rule that the order of the caption does not change during the course of appellate proceedings (as is done in other jurisdictions).

        See example for Guideline C2.

| Top of Page |

C16: IMPOUNDED CASES

(C16)(a)    When an impounded case comes to the Appellate Division designating parties in the caption by initials, that format should be continued.

(b)    When an impounded case comes to the Appellate Division designating parties in the caption by full names, that format should be continued in memos. If necessary, initials will be used in the caption when the opinion is issued.

| Top of Page |

A1: IDENTIFICATION OF DECISION OF AGENCY OR COURT BELOW; EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO CALENDARING; OPINION BELOW PUBLISHED

EXAMPLES:

     #1:    On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County.

     #2:    On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,
               Bergen County.

     #3:    On appeal from the Tax Court of New Jersey.

     #4:    On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor.

     #5:    On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the Public Employees' Retirement
               System, Department of the Treasury.

     #6:    Submitted May 13, 1985 - Decided May 28, 1985.
              Remanded by Supreme Court March 25, 1986.
              Resubmitted May 16, 1986 - Decided June 27, 1986

              Before Judges Greenberg and Gaynor

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
              Division, Essex County and on remand from the Supreme Court.

     #7:    On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen
              County, whose opinion is reported at 290 N.J. Super. 1 (Law Div. 1997).

| Top of Page |

A2: IDENTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

        Smith, Jones and Wilson, attorneys for appellant John Gibson (Thomas M.
        Forsberg, on the brief).

        Carter and Jackson, attorneys for appellant/cross- respondent Susan Gibson
        (Maria Ciolono, on the brief).

        Sean Jackson, respondent pro se.

        Mann and Jones, respondent pro se (Larry Mann, on the brief).

        Clapp & Eisenberg, attorneys for amicus curiae American Insurance Association
        (Elmer Matthews, of counsel and on the brief).

        Peter Verniero, Attorney General, attorney for respondent State Board of
        Education (James Wilson, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in lieu of
        brief).

         Howard Norcross, attorney for respondent Ajax Company, joins in the brief of
         respondent Zenith Company.

---

OPINION EXAMPLES, IF ARGUED:    

        John Smith argued the cause for appellant John Gibson (Smith, Jones and Wilson,
        attorneys;  Thomas M. Forsberg, on the brief).

        Carol Jackson argued the cause for appellant/cross- respondent Susan Gibson
        (Carter and Jackson, attorneys; Bill Carter, on the brief).

        Sean Jackson, respondent, argued the cause pro se.

        Larry Mann argued the cause for pro se respondent Mann and Jones.

        Elmer Matthews argued the cause for amicus curiae American Insurance
        Association (Clapp & Eisenberg,attorneys; Mr. Matthews, on the brief).

        Peter Verniero, Attorney General, attorney for respondent State Board of
        Education (James Wilson, Deputy Attorney General, filed a statement in lieu
        of brief).

MEMO ONLY EXAMPLE:

                 Mead & Mount, attorneys for respondent Capital Insurance Company, have not
                 filed a brief.

| Top of Page |

A3: ORDER OF LISTING OF COUNSEL

(A3)    Regardless of the trial designation below, always list counsel for appellants first in the appearance section, followed by counsel for respondents. In an instance in which there is only one appellant or respondent, or in which the same attorney represents all the appellants or all the respondents, it is not necessary to identify the party by name, as long as the party is identified in the caption.

MEMO EXAMPLES & OPINION EXAMPLES, IF SUBMITTED:

                Smith, Jones and Wilson, attorneys for appellant John Gibson (Thomas M.
                Forsberg, on the brief).

                Carter and Jackson, attorneys for appellant Susan Gibson (Bill Carter, on the brief).

                Mitchell, Nader and Peters, attorneys for respondents (Robert Sills, on the brief).

OPINION EXAMPLES, IF ARGUED:

                 John Smith argued the cause for appellant John Gibson (Smith, Jones and Wilson,
                 attorneys; Thomas M. Forsberg, on the brief).

                 Carol Jackson argued the cause for appellant Susan Gibson (Carter and Jackson,
                  attorneys; Bill Carter, on the brief).

                 Henry Mitchell argued the cause for respondents (Mitchell, Nader and Peters,
                 attorneys; Robert Sills, on the brief).

| Top of Page |

A4: REPRESENTATION IN CRIMINAL APPEALS

(A4)    The Attorney General or County Prosecutor or Public Defender, not the particular Deputy Attorney General or Assistant Prosecutor or Deputy Public Defender who handled the appeal, should be considered the attorney for the State or the defendant.

MEMO EXAMPLES & OPINION EXAMPLES, IF SUBMITTED:

                  Peter Verniero, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Wendy Taylor,
                  Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ned Schwartz, Deputy Attorney General,
                  on the brief).

                  Alfred Peterson, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Melissa
                  Mills, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

                  Susan L. Reisner, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Joan Rowbottom,
                  Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

OPINION EXAMPLES, IF ARGUED:

                  Ned Schwartz, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent
                  (Peter Verniero, Attorney General, attorney; Wendy Taylor, Assistant Attorney
                  General, of counsel; Mr. Schwartz, on the brief).

                 Melissa Mills, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Alfred
                 Peterson, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney; Ms. Mills, on the brief).

                  Joan Rowbottom, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant
                  (Susan L. Reisner, Public Defender, attorney; Ms. Rowbottom, on the brief).
    

| Top of Page |

A5: DESIGNATED COUNSEL

(A5)    When designated counsel represents a criminal defendant on behalf of the Public Defender, the Public Defender should be considered the attorney for the defendant. Do not show the name of designated counsel's law firm.

    
MEMO EXAMPLE & OPINION EXAMPLE, IF SUBMITTED:

          Susan L. Reisner, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Janice Stobie, Designated
          Counsel, on the brief).
    
OPINION EXAMPLE, IF ARGUED:

          Janice Stobie, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (Susan L. Reisner,
          Public Defender, attorney; Ms. Stobie, on the brief).

    

| Top of Page |

A6: REPRESENTATION BY MORE THAN ONE NEW JERSEY FIRM

(A6)    When a party is represented by more than one New Jersey law firm, the firms should be listed as attorneys and the brief writers named without specifying their respective firm affiliations.

MEMO EXAMPLE & OPINION EXAMPLE, IF SUBMITTED:

          Adams, Brooks & Cole, and Danforth, Ellis & Frost, attorneys for appellant (John J.           Brooks and Gail Miller, on the brief).

OPINION EXAMPLE, IF ARGUED:

          John J. Brooks argued the cause for appellant (Adams, Brooks & Cole, and Danforth,
          Ellis & Frost, attorneys; Mr. Brooks and Gail Miller, on the brief).

| Top of Page |

A7: REPRESENTATION BY NEW JERSEY AND OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEYS

(A7)    When a party is represented by a New Jersey firm and an out- of-state attorney based on an admission pro hac vice, first the New Jersey firm and then the individual attorney so admitted should be identified.

    COMMENT: Only an individual attorney, not a firm, may be admitted pro hac vice. R. 1:21-2. This status, once granted, ordinarily continues on appeal. R. 1:21-2(c).

MEMO EXAMPLE & OPINION EXAMPLE, IF SUBMITTED:

          Adams, Brooks, & Cole, and Gail Miller (Dunphy, Ernst & Flynn) of the New York bar,
          admitted pro hac vice, attorneys for appellant (John J. Brooks and Ms. Miller, on the brief).

OPINION EXAMPLE, IF ARGUED:

          Gail Miller (Dunphy, Ernst & Flynn) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued
           the cause for appellant (Adams, Brooks, & Cole, and Ms. Miller, attorneys; John J.
           Brooks and Ms. Miller, on the brief).

| Top of Page |

A8: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

(A8)    When a new law firm is substituted after a brief is filed, that firm replaces the old one as the attorney of record and should be listed in the appearance section without any indi cation of the substitution. The author of the brief, whose identity does not change, is given no firm affiliation. See R. 1:11-1, -2, -3. This guideline applies equally to situations in which a pro se party files a brief and subsequently retains an attorney or in which a represented party decides to appear pro se after the brief has been filed.

    Example: In the first two examples below, Buttermore & Phillips were substituted for Smith, Wilson & Jones as attorneys for appellant. Frank G. Capece wrote the brief as an associate for Smith, Wilson & Jones.

MEMO EXAMPLE & OPINION EXAMPLE, IF SUBMITTED:

          Buttermore & Phillips, attorneys for appellant (Frank G. Capece, on the brief).

OPINION EXAMPLES, IF ARGUED:

         John C. Phillips argued the cause for appellant (Buttermore & Phillips, attorneys; Frank G.
         Capece, on the brief).

         James Smith argued the cause for respondent Mark Williams (Mark Williams, on the pro se
         brief).

         Mark Williams, respondent, argued the cause pro se (Frank Smith, on the brief).

| Top of Page |

A9: PRO SE BRIEFS

(A9)    A pro se supplemental brief should be noted at the end of the list of attorneys for all parties (see examples #1). Otherwise, list pro se briefs in the regular order, according to appellate designation (see examples #2).

MEMO EXAMPLES & OPINION EXAMPLES, IF SUBMITTED:

    #1:    Susan L. Reisner, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (William Morris, Designated
             Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

             Peter Verniero, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Craig Brenner, Deputy
             Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

             Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

     #2:   Bernard Weiss, appellant pro se.

             Smith and Jones, attorneys for respondent (Thomas Jones, on the brief).

OPINION EXAMPLE, IF ARGUED:

    #1:    William Morris, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (Susan L. Reisner,
              Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Morris, on the brief).

             Craig Brenner, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Peter
              Verniero, Attorney General, attorney; Mr. Brenner, on the brief).

              Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

   #2:     Bernard Weiss, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

             Thomas Jones argued the cause for respondent (Smith and Jones, attorneys; Mr. Jones,
             on the brief).                

| Top of Page |

A10: MORE THAN ONE ATTORNEY FOR SAME FIRM

(A10)    Where there is more than one attorney for the same firm, and one performs more than one function on appeal, that attorney may be named twice, but should be referred to as Mr. or Ms. on second mention. See Manual of Style for Judicial Opinions, Sec. 1 (1992).

        An alternate form for memos or submitted opinions is to name the attorney only once, grouping functions.

MEMO EXAMPLES & OPINION EXAMPLES, IF SUBMITTED:

             Adams, Brooks & Cole, attorneys for appellant (Joan J. Brooks, of counsel; Ms.
             Brooks and Susan Carter, on the brief).

             OR

             Adams, Brooks & Cole, attorneys for appellant (Joan J. Brooks, of counsel and on the
             brief; Susan Carter, on the brief).

OPINION EXAMPLE, IF ARGUED:

             Joan J. Brooks argued the cause for appellant (Adams, Brooks & Cole, attorneys; Ms.
             Brooks, of counsel and on the brief; Susan Carter, on the brief).

| Top of Page |

A11: SOLO PRACTITIONER

(A11)    When a solo practitioner is attorney of record, and no other attorney either argues the cause or appears on the brief, do not repeat the attorney's name in a parenthetical (see examples below). This guideline applies equally to pro se parties (see examples at Guideline A9).

MEMO EXAMPLE & OPINION EXAMPLE, IF SUBMITTED:
        
              Robert Silver, attorney for appellant.

OPINION EXAMPLE, IF ARGUED:

              Robert Silver argued the cause for appellant.

| Top of Page |

A12: "ON THE BRIEF"; LETTER BRIEFS

(A12)    The proper designation for brief authors is "on the brief" (singular), even when a reply brief has been filed, and authors of reply briefs should not be men tioned. A letter brief should be identified simply as a "brief."

| Top of Page |

A13: JOINT BRIEFS

(A13)    When two or more parties file a joint brief, the listing should usually be combined (see examples #1, below). If a combined reference is too unwieldy, list the attorneys separately (see examples #2, below).

MEMO EXAMPLES & OPINION EXAMPLES, IF SUBMITTED:

     #1:     Appel and Worthley, attorneys for appellant The House Insurance Company,
               Robinson & Williams, attorneys for appellant Prudential Insurance Company, and John
               Forbes, attorney for appellant Progressive Insurance (Elizabeth Appel, Rosalie Williams,
               and Mr. Forbes, on the joint brief).

     #2:     Ribis and Graham, attorneys for respondent California Union Insurance Company
               (Thomas R. Curtin, on the joint brief).

               Hoagland, Longo, and Oropollo, attorneys for respondent Columbia Casualty
               Company (Michael Oropollo, on the joint brief).

               Kunzman, Coley, & Yospin, attorneys for respondent Allstate Insurance Company
              (Steven A. Kunzman, on the joint brief).

OPINION EXAMPLES, IF ARGUED:

      #1:     Elizabeth Appel and Rosalie Williams argued the cause for appellants (Appel and
                Worthley, attorneys for appellant The House Insurance Company, Robinson &
                Williams, attorneys for appellant Prudential Insurance Company, and John Forbes,
                attorney for appellant Progressive Insurance Company; Ms. Appel, Ms. Williams and
                Mr. Forbes, on the joint brief).
     #2:     Thomas R. Curtin argued the cause for respondents (Ribis and Graham, attorneys for
                respondent California Union Insurance Company; Mr. Curtin, on the joint brief filed by
                respondents).

                Hoagland, Longo, and Oropollo, attorneys for respondent Columbia Casualty
                Company (Michael Oropollo, on the joint brief).

                Kunzman, Coley, & Yospin, attorneys for respondent Allstate Insurance Company
                (Steven A. Kunzman, on the joint brief).

| Top of Page |

| Top of Page |

| Top of Page |