Owen v. CNA Insurance

• A contract contained an anti-assignment provision.
• Ms. Owen was injured in a slip-&-fall accident.
• Ms. Owen = "Owen" = plaintiff
• CNA Insurance = "CNA" = defendant = the tortfeasor's insurer = Continental National American Group
  • Continental Casualty Company = a subsidiary of CNA
• Owen & CNA reached a settlement for the injuries of Owen.
• Owen received 1 lump-sum payment with 5 additional payments over the next 20 years.
• The settlement contract prohibited assignment of the settlement damages due to Owen.
• In 1997, Owen assigned 2 of her payments in 2001 & 2006 payments to Metropolitan Mortgage and Securities Company ("Metropolitan").
  • 2001 payment was for $20,000
  • 2006 payment was for $30,000
• CNA refused to send payments to Metropolitan, Owen's assignee.

• Owen filed an informal complaint to no avail.
• Owen sued CNA in a New Jersey Superior Court for a declaratory judgement that the non-assignment clause in the settlement contract was un-enforceable.
• Owen won in the trial court.
• Owen lost in the Appellate Division.

Do contract provisions that limit or prohibit assigning contractual rights only impact the right to assign, but the provisions don't prevent the assignment itself, unless the parties manifest an intent otherwise?

Yes. Contract provisions that limit or prohibit assigning contractual rights only impact the right to assign, but they don't prevent the assignment itself, unless the parties manifest an intent otherwise.

Holding is in favor of Own's right to assign to a 3rd party (Metropolitan) despite the prohibition against assignment in the contract.

Reversed