Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

61 DEBORAH M. JACOB v. THE NETHERLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 684

... NEW JERSEY POLICY, AS THIS IS NOT CONSIDERED STACKING UNDER N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c). In its appeal, Travelers, under A-1445-11 ... to the Court's decision in Pinto , the Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 (the "Scutari" Amendment), which provides: A policy that names ... will be exhausted. Under the statutory anti-stacking provision of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c), plaintiff is not entitled to seek any UIM ...

docket:	a1445-11
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2013-08-28
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	45092

62 MELVIN REID v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 684

... seeking UIM benefits. The comparison of policy limits required by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e) is determined by the 'actual tortfeasor's policy ... to non-resident relatives to 'the minimum limit required by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1.' Id. at 535. The plaintiff in that case, like ... to non-family members to 'the minimum limit required by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1.' And, in Cox v. Tomasso, No. A-0106-17 ...

docket:	a2401-18
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2020-02-27
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	46024

63 DEBORAH M. JACOB v. THE NETHERLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 684

... NEW JERSEY POLICY, AS THIS IS NOT CONSIDERED STACKING UNDER N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c). In its appeal, Travelers, under A-1445-11 ... to the Court's decision in Pinto , the Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 (the "Scutari" Amendment), which provides: A policy that names ... will be exhausted. Under the statutory anti-stacking provision of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c), plaintiff is not entitled to seek any UIM ...

docket:	a1378-11
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2013-08-28
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	45092

64 Robert Ferrante v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group -- rank: 681

... derived from statute. See Zirger, 144 N.J. at 333; N.J.S.A. 17:28- 1.1(b). An individual against whom recovery is sought after ... insurance policy held by the person seeking that recovery.” N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)(1). The Legislature requires carriers “to offer ... 000.” Zirger, 144 N.J. at 11 333 (citing N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(b)). The availability of UIM coverage “reflects a ...

docket:	a_87_16
court:	NJ Supreme Court
decided:	2018-04-11
status:
citation:
Document Size:	40374

65 HAN HUNG LUONG v. FRANK T. GEORGE -- rank: 681

... based on the court's application of the Deemer Statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, to plaintiff's claim for non- economic losses.1 ... 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 ... specified in [N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a)]. . . . . [N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4.] [ 415 N.J. Super. at 592 (alterations in original ... an insurer authorized to transact . . . insurance business in this State,' N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, plaintiff's claim was subject to a limitation- ...

docket:	a0878-13
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2014-12-22
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	22970

66 WAYNE ADAMS v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 681

... provision was unenforceable either because it violated the UM statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, or was inconsistent with their reasonable expectation of coverage ... 183 N.J. 405 , 412 (2005), superseded in part by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f) (prohibiting step-down provisions in certain business auto ... 541. Alternatively, plaintiffs argue the step-down is invalid under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. Although the statute does not prohibit step-down clauses ... coverage when multiple insurance policies are available is invalid under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(a). Ibid. We relied on Beek v. Ohio Casualty ... Rider , the plaintiff had argued the clause was invalid under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c). Id. at 236. We upheld the step-down ... or "seek to avoid pro rata contribution" as required by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c); instead, it merely "proscribe[d] the maximum ...

docket:	a2718-14
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2016-05-25
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	21347

67 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/supreme/a2718-14.opn.html -- rank: 681

... provision was unenforceable either because it violated the UM statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, or was inconsistent with their reasonable expectation of coverage ... 183 N.J. 405 , 412 (2005), superseded in part by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f) (prohibiting step-down provisions in certain business auto ... 541. Alternatively, plaintiffs argue the step-down is invalid under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. Although the statute does not prohibit step-down clauses ... coverage when multiple insurance policies are available is invalid under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(a). Ibid. We relied on Beek v. Ohio Casualty ... Rider , the plaintiff had argued the clause was invalid under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c). Id. at 236. We upheld the step-down ... or "seek to avoid pro rata contribution" as required by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c); instead, it merely "proscribe[d] the maximum ...

docket:
court:	NJ Superior Court Law/Chancery Division
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size:	20579

68 MARKET TRANSITION FACILITY OF NEW JERSEY VS TERESA PARISI-LUSARDI -- rank: 679

... of $15,000 per person/$30,000 per accident. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1a. As a result of the injuries Lusardi sustained in ... immediately appealed both decisions. See footnote 3 ����The UIM statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1e, provides, ��������A motor vehicle is underinsured when the sum ... Cos. , 140 N.J. 397 (1995), the Supreme Court interpreted N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1e: ��������[W]e conclude that UIM coverage, which is limited ... Legislature was aware that " multiple policies " might provide UIM coverage, [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c)], it specifically provided that to determine whether a ... plaintiff with an option to purchase optional UIM coverage. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1b. In turn, plaintiff would have either elected to purchase ...

docket:	a1709-95
court:	njappellate
decided:	1996-09-04
status:	published
citation:	293 N.J.Super. 471
Document Size:	40863

69 ANDREW HOJNOWSKI, et al. v. VANS SKATE PARK -- rank: 679

... In this case, the optional nature of UIM benefits under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1b, and the absence of a statute exempting minors from ...

docket:	A2028-03
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2005-03-10
status:	published
citation:	375 N.J. Super. 568 868 A.2d 108
Document Size:	124910

70 SHIRLEY WILSON v. ELVIN ORTIZ-PONCE -- rank: 679

... that plaintiff does not have a valid UIM claim under N.J.S.A. 17:28- 1.1(e). This was so even though plaintiff's recovery ... has a viable claim for UIM coverage. She does not. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e) states: A motor vehicle is underinsured when the ... insurance policy held by the person seeking that recovery. Under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)(1), whether a vehicle is underinsured requires a ... policy was also $100,000; thus, the formula prescribed by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)(1) yields no UIM coverage for her. We ... court explained: '[t]he comparison of policy limits required by N.J.S.A. 17:28- 1.1(e) is determined by the 'actual tortfeasor's policy ...

docket:	a0316-19
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2021-03-25
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	14476

71 Camie Livsey v. Mercury Insurance Group -- rank: 676

... 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 status to ... 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 already has ... such technical or special and accepted meaning."). On its face, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, thereby giving effect to its legislative intent." Shaw , supra ... intentional act maximizes the scope of the protection available under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, thereby giving effect to its legislative intent." Ibid. Based ...

docket:	a-96-07
court:
decided:	2009-02-19
status:
citation:	197 N.J. 522 964 A.2d 312
Document Size:	92311

72 Mark R. Krzykalski v. David T. Tindall -- rank: 676

... that automobile insurance policies include a UM provision since 1968. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1; Riccio v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 108 N ... that automobile insurance policies include a UM provision since 1968. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1; Riccio v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 108 N ... Legislature has acknowledged and prepared for precisely such circumstances. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. Stated simply, “phantom 19 vehicles” driven by known ...

docket:	a_55_16
court:	NJ Supreme Court
decided:	2018-04-17
status:
citation:
Document Size:	48446

73 JOSE L. CHAVEZ v. THE PROFORMANCE INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 671

... to do business in New Jersey, it was obligated under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, commonly known as the "deemer" statute, to provide minimum ... the Proformance policy as result of their motor vehicle accident. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 provides in pertinent part: [A]ny insurer authorized to ... 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 ... policy and therefore subject to application of the deemer statute. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4. II. In view of our determination that the Executive ... A. 39:6A-1 to -35 and the UM statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, we have construed terms in both statutes in ...

docket:	a5665-06
court:
decided:	2008-08-14
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	42147

74 JONATHAN KLAMA v. SANDRO ZUNIGA-ELIZANDO -- rank: 671

... 000 for injury or death to more than one person. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(a)(1) to -(2). Insurers are required to provide ... to $250,000 per person and $500,000 per accident. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(b). However, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c) provides that "[i]f the insured had uninsured ... liability under NJM's step-down clause were consistent with N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c). Christafano , supra , 361 N.J. Super. at 237 ... the higher of the applicable limits of the respective coverages[.]" N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c). The "applicable" limit of coverage is not the ... as determined after application of the step-down clause. Under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c), the "recovery" is "prorated between the applicable ...

docket:	a1382-09
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-03-16
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	31840

75 Green v. Selective Insurance -- rank: 671

... with the conclusion that the six-year period provided in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1e required the exhaustion of all available automobile insurance coverage ... Super. 271 (App. Div. 1989), the court explained that when N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1e speaks of "available" insurance coverage, it plainly refers to ... common sense understanding of the term `available' as used in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1e . . . ." Dickenson v. Indemnity Ins. Co. , 276 N.J. Super ...

docket:	a-74-95
court:	njsupreme
decided:	1996-06-12
status:
citation:	144 N.J. 344
Document Size:	53128