Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

16 MICHAEL PIZZULLO et al. v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 833

... its part, plaintiffs' action was barred by the provisions of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9b, and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Commissioner of ... cannot trump the public policy enunciated by the Legislature in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9, conferring immunity to insurance carriers in actions brought by ... 3) the carrier satisfied the special coverage selection requirements of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9a because: (1) the UIM coverage provided to plaintiffs was ... required by law; (2) it complied with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9b, by supplying plaintiffs with the Buyer's Guide approved ... the trial court rejected NJM's claim for immunity under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9a, noting that plaintiffs' claims were predicated upon NJM's ... policy for her." According to the trial court, in adopting N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9a, the Legislature intended to immunize insurers only from ...

docket:	A1395-05
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2007-03-08
status:	published
citation:	391 N.J. Super. 113 917 A.2d 276
Document Size:	74608

17 METLIFE AUTO AND HOME v. DONALD PALMER -- rank: 828

... avoid paying pro rata contribution under the anti-stacking provision, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c, by excluding uninsured motorist (UM) coverage for injuries sustained ... are valid and not subject to the anti-stacking provision, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c. Therefore, such policies may include other insurance clauses that ... counterclaim demanding contribution from MetLife of its proportionate share, under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and ... to the MetLife policy; and (2) violates the provisions of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, which mandates the inclusion of UM coverage in every ... to Travelers' contention that the policy language runs afoul of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. Travelers places heavy reliance on our recent decision in ... supra , 354 N.J. Super. 491 . The pertinent provisions of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 are:     a. [N]o motor vehicle liability policy ...

docket:	A2705-02
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2004-01-06
status:	published
citation:	365 N.J. Super. 293 839 A.2d 83
Document Size:	31625

18 ASTIN CIVITANO v. JASON FONTAINE -- rank: 828

... coverage because Joyce was not an 'actual responsible tortfeasor' under N.J.S.A. 17:28- 1.1(e). NJM thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration of ... NJM argued that the court's ruling was contrary to N.J.S.A. 17:28- 1.1(e) because the coverage provided under the Liberty Mutual ... Civitano in that the term 'available' in the context of [ N.J.S.A.] 17:28- 1.1(e) refers to actual responsible tortfeasors. It is undisputed ... UIM coverage is entitled to recovery are set forth in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)[(1)].' Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kress ... Super. 81, 84 (App. Div. 1990). The statutory language of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1(e)(1) is 'clear and must be applied as written ... Cos., 232 N.J. Super. 393, 399 (App. Div. 1989). N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)(1) defines UIM coverage and provides in ...

docket:	a3087-19
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2021-01-12
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	34028

19 JACQUELINE JOHNSON v. REPUBLIC WESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 825

... that the failure to include a statute of limitations in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6 while creating a detailed limitations scheme under N.J ... the time period for filing suit for MEB payment under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6 was governed by the limitations period contained in N ... reference to the time deadlines of the automobile PIP statute. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6 provides: a. Every owner, registered owner or operator of ... relate to automobiles, subject to the PIP benefit deadline, reference N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6. Moreover, we have not found any declaration of Legislative ... paid MEB to its passengers pursuant to our deemer statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, under which automobile policies covering out-of-state vehicles ... payment of MEB for injured bus passengers as mandated by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6, even though the deemer statute was not amended ...

docket:	A3968-05
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2007-03-16
status:	published
citation:	391 N.J. Super. 194 917 A.2d 803
Document Size:	44663

20 MARTIN V. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY V. UNSATISFIED CLAIM AND JUDGMENT FUND -- rank: 810

... containing personal-injury-protection (PIP) benefits. Since 1977, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 (the conformity statute), an insurance company must, in accordance ... in excess of $75,000 paid under the conformity statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4. 1. The language of the relevant statutes do not ... of PIP benefits as are required under New Jersey law. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4. Therefore, as a condition of doing business in New ... the $75,000 paid under New Jersey's conformity statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4. I     For purposes of this appeal, we rely generally ... 4a. (Medical expense benefits are a form of PIP benefits.) N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, should be construed with N.J.S.A. 39 ... certification. 139 N.J. 184 (1994). II     The conformity statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, provides:             Any insurer authorized to transact or transacting ...

docket:	a-114-94
court:	njsupreme
decided:	1995-07-31
status:
citation:	141 N.J. 279
Document Size:	46930

21 LLEDON JAMES v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 808

... from civil liability as a matter of law pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a). Alternatively, State Farm claimed the PIP benefits coverage ... judgment relying on the immunity provided by the Legislature in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a). The Law Division judge assigned to this case ... finding it was immune from liability in this case under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a). The judge found the record indisputably showed Lynval ... verified complaint with prejudice pursuant to the immunity provisions in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a). In this appeal, plaintiffs argue the Law Division ... erred when it found State Farm immune from liability under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a). The New Jersey Association for Justice, appearing as ... is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 states in pertinent part: . . . . no . . . insurer . . . shall be ...

docket:	a4761-15
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2019-01-18
status:	Published
citation:	457 N.J.Super. 576 202 A.3d 23
Document Size:	32641

22 Camie Livsey v. Mercury Insurance Group -- rank: 805

... drive-by shootings. The court explained that the UM statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(a)(2), requires proof of an accident and that ... favor of the insurer. 1. The Court’s interpretation of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(a)(2) is guided by core principles of statutory ... and contemporaneous construction. (Pp. 9-11). 2. On its face, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(a)(2) appears clear. It states, in relevant part ... maintenance, operation or use of such uninsured . . . motor vehicle [.]” N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(a)(2) (emphasis supplied). Reasoning that the UM statute ... entitling the victim to statutorily-mandated uninsured motorists benefits under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(a)(2).’” We also granted amicus curiae ... entitling the victim to statutorily-mandated uninsured motorist benefits under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(a)(2).” She asserts that this Court ...

docket:	a-96-07
court:
decided:	2009-02-19
status:
citation:	197 N.J. 522
Document Size:	72807

23 French v. New Jersey School Board Association Insurance Group -- rank: 805

... losses suffered. The nature of the coverage is defined by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1e. The fact that it must be offered by insurers as a mandatory option is dictated by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1b. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c prohibits the stacking of UIM benefits on either an ... J. Super. 94 , 96 (App. Div.) (holding that purpose of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1b, c, and e was to offer an insured protection ... in Tyler , where the court observed:             The plain meaning of [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1e] is that underinsured motorist benefits are available if (and ... require that we resort, at length, to the text of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1e:         For the purposes of this section, (1) "underinsured ...

docket:	a-96-96
court:	njsupreme
decided:	1997-06-25
status:
citation:	146 N.J. 500
Document Size:	53356

24 Selective Ins. v. Thomas, et al. -- rank: 803

... policies, are restricted by New Jersey's anti-stacking statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c to collectively recovering the highest single limit of all ... among other things, that the statutory anti-stacking language of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c limited the Thomases' UIM coverage from both policies collectively ... Selective policy, subject to any other relevant policy limitations. 1. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 provides that no motor vehicle policy or renewal insuring ... 1998). Stacking of UM and UIM coverage is prohibited by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c. The question presented is whether Charles and Debra, both ... s policy and that the statutory anti-stacking language of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c limited the Thomases' UIM coverage from both policies collectively ... the Ohio and Selective policies, the court held that under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, because Ohio's policy contained split UM/UIM ...

docket:	a-17-03
court:
decided:	2004-05-13
status:
citation:
Document Size:	84355

25 KARON K. JOHNSON v. ROSELLE EZ QUICK LLC -- rank: 792

... not require a different result. There, the statutory amendment of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 required reformation of existing insurance policies. Id. at 571 ... prospectively in all respects. The Court held the new statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f), would apply partially retroactively to existing insurance policies ...

docket:	a4244-12
court:	New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2014-08-25
status:	Published
citation:
Document Size:	70247

26 HERIBERTO CABALLERO-GONZALEZ v. HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 785

... N.J.S.A. 39:6A-14 (emphasis added); see N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. It is not disputed the Cadillac was principally garaged ... required. He contends the policy's exclusion is repugnant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1's requirement that all policies have uninsured motorist (UM ... App. Div. 2002). However, the Legislature overruled Phillips by amending N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. Magnifico v. Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co., 153 N.J ... and exclusions approved by the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance.' N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(d). 'There is no suggestion here that such approval ... Hardy, 397 N.J. Super. at 587. No provision of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 bars such an exclusion. See Christafano v. N.J ... Div. 2003) (distinguishing Rider because there the policy exclusion made N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c) 'surplusage'). Nor is the policy exclusion contrary ...

docket:	a0875-16
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2017-12-29
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	64590

27 Thomas DeMarco v. Sean Robert Stoddard, D.P.M. -- rank: 775

... obtain automobile liability insurance acquires uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(b). Such coverage ameliorates the financial harm that may ...

docket:	A-104-13
court:	NJ Supreme Court
decided:	2015-12-01
status:
citation:	219 N.J. 131 97 A.3d 663
Document Size:	148694

28 PAUL J. BANACH v. ALEX TARAKANOV -- rank: 772

... further concluded that plaintiffs' claim against NJM is barred by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9. Because the record reveals factual questions whether NJM satisfied ... judge further found that NJM was "entitled to immunity under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9," providing it with "a shield against both claims for ... not only loosely track the exception to the immunity statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9, they also allege conduct that would violate the CFA ... properly granted summary judgment, claiming entitlement to immunity, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9, which provides, in pertinent part: a. [N]o . . . insurer ... willful, wanton or grossly negligent act of commission or omission. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 was enacted "to abrogate prior judicial decisions holding insurers ... 3) the carrier complied with the coverage selection requirements of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(b). [ Baldassano v. High Point Ins. Co. , 396 ...

docket:	a5505-14
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2017-09-12
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	60814

29 JANET MEAD v. THOMAS SCHOENBORN -- rank: 767

... UM protection in insurance policies written in New Jersey. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. The purpose of UM coverage is to protect New ... omitted).] We further note that although the Legislature has amended N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 on several occasions since Tyler was decided in l988 ...

docket:	a0340-09
court:	superior court appellate division
decided:	2010-04-16
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	49622

30 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, -- rank: 765

... was delivered by LEFELT, J.A.D. The deemer statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, mandates that some automobile insurance companies include within their ... 1989, L. 1988, c. 119, ' 1, imposed the verbal threshold, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 ] The first notable observation regarding the amendment at issue ... of PIP benefits as are required under New Jersey law, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4." Martin , supra , 141 N.J. at 282. But, out ... Truck , 295 N.J. Super. 131 , 137 (App. Div. 1996) ( N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 was not applicable where accident occurred in New Jersey ... 1997, c. 436, the 1998 amendment, which is codified at N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4. Under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 ...

docket:	A0995-01
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2003-03-25
status:	published
citation:	358 N.J. Super. 555 818 A.2d 474
Document Size:	53396