Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

46 Magnifico v. Rutgers Casualty Insurance Co. -- rank: 729

... provides a higher limit of coverage. The anti-stacking statute ( N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c. The clear and unmistakable purpose of the anti-stacking ... was primary, but argued that the anti-stacking provision of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c prevented Magnifico from collecting anything beyond the $250,000 ... which Magnifico is entitled, whether the anti-stacking provision of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c limits that available coverage, and the respective liability of ... insurance policy held by the person seeking that recovery" in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1e should be understood to "include a policy provided for ... Magnifico's argument implies that the anti-stacking provision of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c does not preclude an insured from obtaining increased coverage ... recover under each car's UM coverage, the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, L. 1983, c. 362, to add a specific ...

docket:	a-61-97
court:	njsupreme
decided:	1998-05-12
status:
citation:	153 N.J. 406
Document Size:	54904

47 Edward Zabilowicz v. Roslyne Kelsey -- rank: 727

... threshold applied to Zabilowicz by reason of the Deemer Statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4. Because he did not have a qualifying injury under ... In this automobile insurance case, under the plain language of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, the Deemer Statute, and N.J.S.A. 39 ... N.J. 477, 480-81 & n.1 (2005); see also N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 -- known as the 'Deemer Statute' -- provides benefits and burdens ... receive PIP benefits on a no-fault basis under 2 N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 apparently acquired its name as the Deemer Statute because ... us, we must look to the interrelationship between two statutes, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, the Deemer Statute, and 183 N.J. at 492 ... We first look to the specific language of the Deemer N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 requires insurers authorized to Statute. transact automobile insurance ...

docket:	a-87-08
court:	supreme
decided:	2009-12-17
status:
citation:	200 N.J. 507 984 A.2d 872
Document Size:	25378

48 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING, CO. -- rank: 724

... injury protection coverage required to be provided in accordance with [N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4], or although required did not maintain personal injury protection ...

docket:	a5624-17
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2019-05-23
status:	Published
citation:	459 N.J.Super. 223 208 A.3d 888
Document Size:	30742

49 COACH USA, INC., CAPE TRANSIT CORPORATION AND LEISURE LINE, INC. v. ALLSTATE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY, -- rank: 722

... separate accidents with commercial busses, can obtain reimbursement pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6 that was equivalent to PIP insurance ( i.e. , bus ... injury protection coverage required to be provided in accordance with [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4], or although required did not maintain personal injury protection ... the bus passengers pursuant to New Jersey's deemer statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, which requires carriers that do business here to afford ... 1 to specifically include insurers paying bus-PIP, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6, among those insurers entitled to seek reimbursement, determining that ... coverage was afforded directly to the bus companies pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6. Moreover, we focus on the effect of N.J ...

docket:	A0250-01
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2002-10-01
status:	published
citation:
Document Size:	18357

50 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. VS EILEEN CROCKER -- rank: 719

... by virtue of New Jersey's so-called "deemer" statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4? We conclude that she is entitled to arbitrate the ... J.S.A. 39:6A-5c, and our deemer statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4. N.J.S.A. 39:6B-1 or 39 ... 3], the uninsured motorist insurance requirements of subsection a. of [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1], and [PIP] benefits coverage pursuant to [ N.J.S ... policy, shall be subject to the tort option specified in [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 (emphasis added).]     State Farm initially argues that the deemer ... deemer statute intimates no such condition precedent to its operation. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4. To the contrary, it provides specifically that the requisite ... the subject vehicle "is used or operated" in New Jersey. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4. This is true notwithstanding that, as a practical ...

docket:	a3686-94
court:	njappellate
decided:	1996-03-08
status:	published
citation:	288 N.J.Super. 250
Document Size:	18572

51 JOHN K. CUPIDO v. WILLIAM PEREZ -- rank: 717

... is subject to the limitation-on-lawsuit threshold pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, commonly referred to as the deemer statute. 1 We ... pursuant to [ N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4] or [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.3] for any New Jersey resident who is not required ... A. 39:6A-3], the uninsured motorist insurance requirements of [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1], and personal injury protection benefits coverage pursuant to [ N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4] or [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.3], whenever the automobile or motor vehicle insured under the ... as defined in [ N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2]. [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4.] The statute was originally enacted in 1985 as part ... authorized to transact commercial motor vehicle insurance in the State. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4. We conclude that the deemer statute imposes an ...

docket:	a4557-08
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2010-08-27
status:
citation:	415 N.J. Super. 587 2 A.3d 1159
Document Size:	30499

52 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/appellate/a5568-12xx.opn.html -- rank: 709

... statutorily-mandated first-party medical expense benefit coverage pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6. See 354 N.J. Super. at 278. In Coach ...

docket:
court:	NJ Superior Court Law/Chancery Division
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size:	65068

53 MEHERALY MERCHANT v. BRIAN J. VINDICK -- rank: 709

... statutorily-mandated first-party medical expense benefit coverage pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6. See 354 N.J. Super. at 278. In Coach ...

docket:	a3822-12
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2014-04-25
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	65698

54 Tyrone A. Huggins v. Mary E. Aquilar -- rank: 709

... only indirectly discussed liability coverage via the parity requirement of N.J.S.A. 17:28- - 1.1(b). See 140 N.J. at 405-08. Aubrey ...

docket:	a-78-19
court:	NJ Supreme Court
decided:	2021-04-21
status:
citation:
Document Size:	58153

55 SATNAM SINGH v. LONELL CHESTNUT, JR -- rank: 707

... They contend the trial court's decision is contrary to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f), which elevates Singh to the status of 'named ... was working for APCO at the time of the accident, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f) gives him the status of 'named insured' under ... 216 N.J 552, 565 (2014), the Court noted that N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f) was enacted in response to the decision in ... A-5482-18T4 8 The Court in James stated that N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f) prohibits the use of step-down provisions to ... maximum available coverage. Id. at 556. We are convinced that N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f) was intended to address the amount of UM ... the legislative Committee's statement that accompanied the enactment of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1(f) supports our conclusion that the statute was intended ...

docket:	a5482-18
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2020-10-20
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	21837

56 NICOLE PIERIDES v. GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 707

... vehicle was not involved in the accident, the "Deemer Statute," N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, does not apply to provide the coverage that would ... A. 39:6A-23; that GEICO violated that statute and N.J .S.A . 17:28-1.9 in failing to do so and therefore deprived plaintiffs ... emergency care provided to Nicole based upon her injuries. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, ONLY ALLOWS REFORMATION OF A POLICY WHEN THE INSURED ... Caviglia , supra , 178 N.J. at 471 (upholding constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, the Third Circuit noted the nexus between contributing to ...

docket:	a2783-08
court:	superior court appellate division
decided:	2010-04-19
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	90263

57 WILMA CSAP v. AMERICAN MILLENNIUM INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 702

... insurance statutes, N.J.S.A. 39:6B-1 and N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, is $15,000, no further coverage is required beyond ... policy. AMIC further contends that we should focus solely on N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, because "only N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 imposes liability limits on insurers issuing auto policies in ... 1 (adopting mandatory minimum $15,000 coverage for automobile insurance); N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1; L. 1972, c. 204, § 1 (same). We infer ... 3.3, rather than the general statutes governing auto insurers, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 39:6B ...

docket:	a2726-12
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2014-05-19
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	38234

58 COOPER HOSPITAL UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 699

... whether the 1998 amendment to New Jersey's deemer statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, L. 1997, c . 436, § 1, limits an insurer's ... summary judgment on the ground that the 1998 amendment to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 limited its obligation to pay New Jersey-mandated PIP ... under the policy is used or operated in this State. [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4.] Generally speaking, the deemer statute effectively mandates that out ... motorist coverage in the same minimum amounts, as required by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, L. 1988, c . 119, § 1. In other words, the ... transacting automobile or motor vehicle insurance business in New Jersey." N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, L. 1997, c. 436, § 1. In contrast, the original ...

docket:	A1861-03
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2005-06-27
status:	published
citation:	378 N.J. Super. 510 876 A.2d 335
Document Size:	53955

59 HARRIET BERGER v. FIRST TRENTON INDEMNITY COMPANY, -- rank: 694

... PIP benefits. The provisions of our "no fault" law and N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 are distinct and serve different purposes. Thus, we have ... the 'no fault' law do not govern the interpretation of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1." Transport of New Jersey v. Watler , 161 N.J ... allowed by N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2a and N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 in the context of UIM benefits, we said as ... because it goes beyond those exclusions permitted by statute. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1a. One of its primary purposes is to alleviate financial ... to reduce or take away from the coverage mandated in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, the contractual provision will almost certainly be found void ... of it and its operator or owner cannot be ascertained.      N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 does contain exclusions for vehicles that would otherwise ...

docket:	A2148-99
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2001-04-23
status:	published
citation:	339 N.J. Super. 402
Document Size:	28573

60 CANAL INSURANCE CO. VS F.W. CLUKEY TRUCKING CO., ET AL -- rank: 689

... registered, in Connecticut; it is not registered in New Jersey.      N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 requires some insurers of motor vehicles which are not ... N.J. Super. 578, 583-84 (App. Div. 1994).     However, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 also appears to be inapplicable to the present case ... to prove facts which would subject Canal's policy to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4.     We next consider whether New Jersey law controls the ...

docket:	a4684-94
court:	njappellate
decided:	1996-11-15
status:	published
citation:	295 N.J.Super. 131
Document Size:	40825