concurring.
This appeal is before the Court as of right, R. 2:2-1(a), based on Judge Wefing’s dissent below in which she concluded that Continental Insurance Company’s (Continental) comprehensive general liability (CGL) policy rather than Home State Insurance Company’s (Home State) automobile policy should provide coverage for plaintiffs injury claim. Home State Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 313 N.J.Super. 584, 596-600, 713 A.2d 557 (App.Div.1998) (Wefing, J., dissenting). In our view, that dissent fairly presents to this Court for resolution the issue whether either or both *105policies provide coverage. Essentially for the reasons expressed in Judge Brochin’s concurring opinion, id. at 595-96, 713 A.2d 557, we are of the view that a sufficient nexus between plaintiff’s injuries and the use of the school bus exists to sustain coverage under the automobile policy. We also believe that the supervisory responsibilities of the bus driver, as distinguished from his obligation to drive safely, are sufficiently implicated by the claim to warrant the conclusion that the CGL policy’s exclusionary clause should not bar coverage under that policy. Accordingly, we would affirm and modify the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand to the Law Division to apportion coverage in accordance with the “other insurance” clauses of the policies.
STEIN and COLEMAN, JJ., concurring in the result.
For affirmance — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, and COLEMAN — 7.
Opposed — None.