Abramson

ORDER

Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (“Aet-na”) has filed a petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc. In its petition, Aetna urges us to apply the setoff provision in its insurance policy with Abram-son required under New Jersey law. The setoff provision would require an injured par *1174 ty to offset insurance benefits by any other settlements received from other tortfeasors involved in the same accident.

This precise argument was not addressed in Aetna’s brief. Aetna did argue that the setoff provision should be followed under New Jersey law. See Brief for Appellant at 21-22. It did not argue, however, that the setoff provision should be applied in the event that the district court was affirmed in applying Hawaii law.

This court in its opinion found that Hawaii law was applicable and controlled the legal consequences of the case. This court specifically held under Hawaii law that the anti-stacking provisions of Abramson’s policy were against the public policy of Hawaii. The petition for rehearing now urges that notwithstanding this ruling the setoff provision of the policy as written in the policy and as required by New Jersey law should nonetheless be…