relationship with the carrier and looks to it for recovery for injury caused by its insured. See Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 2.6 on R. 4:42-9(6) (Gann 2008). Because the intention of the Rule “is intended to permit an award of counsel fees only where an insurer refused to indemnify or defend in respect of its insured’s third-party liability to another, it has not been extended beyond its express terms in order to authorize a fee award to an insured who brings direct suit against his insurer to enforce casualty or other direct coverage, including UM/UIM coverage.” Pressler, Current N.J. Cowrt Rules, comment 2.6 on R. 4:42-9(a)(6) (Gann 2008). See also Enright v. Lubow, 215 N.J.Super. 306, 311-12, 521 A.2d 1300 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 108 N.J. 193, 528 A.2d 19 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Giri v. Medical Inter-Ins. Exchange of N.J.,
holding r 4429a6 to be inapplicable to direct actions brought by the insured against the carrier to enforce coverage recognizing a breachofduty action by an employee against a workers compensation carrier even though the carrier issued its policy to the employer holding ambiguous provisions are to be interpreted so as to provide maximum coverage to the insured holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled holding that a covenant not to execute on a judgment against an insured does not negate insurance coverage and stating that many courts including floridas look with disfavor on the idea that a covenant not to enforce against one party automatically releases that partys insurance carrier