counters both business and common sense. Instead, a corporation would reasonably expect that the policy that it purchased would provide an extra layer of insurance for its employees, especially in situations like the present one where the nature of the job increases the likelihood of injury. Prior ease law demonstrates that employers can intend individuals to be named insureds, even though they are not listed as such. See, e.g., Macchi v. Conn. Gen. Ins. Co., 354, N.J.Super. 64, 74, 804 A.2d 596 (App.Div.2002) (stating that plaintiff was “for all intents and purposes an individual named insured under [the] policy” where corporation purchased policy and plaintiff was primary user of vehicle); Araya v. Farm, Family Cas. Ins. Co., 353 N.J.Super. 203, 210-11, 801 A.2d 1194 (App.Div.2002) (<HOLDING>). I recognize that those decisions do not apply
holding plaintiffs uim claims did not accrue until his lawsuit against the underinsured driver was resolved where insurance policy provided for uim coverage only after liability policies had been exhausted holding that prospective buyer of used car could not recover under dealers uim endorsement because uim insurance is not for protection of vehicles but of persons recognizing the overlap of issues pertaining to um and uim coverage and describing areas as to which distinct treatment is appropriate holding that ambiguity arises from  failure to designate a natural person  entitled to uim coverage and relying on declarations page as indicator of purchasers reasonable expectations holding that the secretary may only delegate the powers and duties of the office to a natural person not to an administration or entity other than a natural person