Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

76 LORRAINE AINSWORTH V. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 671

... Insurance Underwriting Association (JUA) is uninsured in the context of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, thereby permitting plaintiff to proceed directly against her uninsured ... in the context of a UM claim presented pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)(2)(b).     The practical impact of plaintiff's ... accident have been exhausted by payment of settlements or judgments. [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1e.] The Longworth court stated that the exhaustion of the ...

docket:	a1031-93
court:	njappellate
decided:	1995-09-08
status:	published published
citation:	<a href=
Document Size:	36383

77 RICHARD P. BADUINI et al. v. STEPHINA SERINA -- rank: 669

... affirmative defenses, and dismissing the complaint under the "deemer" statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, for failure to satisfy the verbal threshold. The judgment ... Plaintiff argues that he need not satisfy the verbal threshold, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, as a result of his personal injury protection (PIP ... N.J. 341 , 344 (1997), the Supreme Court held that N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 "deems New Jersey's 'verbal threshold' . . . to apply 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 ... is used or operated in this State. See footnote 5 [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4.]     Unlike Whitaker , plaintiff in this case is a ...

docket:	A3842-03
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2005-03-10
status:	published
citation:	375 N.J. Super. 478 868 A.2d 372
Document Size:	21593

78 AUBREY V. THE HARLEYSVILLE INSURANCE COMPANIES -- rank: 669

... any person "occupying a covered auto." The parity provision of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1b, however, states that an insured's UIM coverage "shall ... the insured comports with the insured's reasonable expectations. Under N.J.S.A. 17:28-.1.1b, UIM coverage is discretionary, not mandatory. The statute merely ... liability section of the Harleysville policy. Our analysis begins with N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1b, which mandates parity between the underinsured motorist coverage and ... the statutory minimum, $15,000. Under the parity provision of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1b, Aubrey's right to recover underinsured benefits would be ...

docket:	a-88-94
court:	njsupreme
decided:	1995-06-08
status:
citation:	140 N.J. 397
Document Size:	35856

79 AIG CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. GREGORY R. THOMPSON -- rank: 666

... Business Auto Policy, except for injuries suffered by pedestrians. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.3. Harris, however, had procured from AIG a basic automobile ...

docket:	a4358-11
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2012-11-19
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	23003

80 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/appellate/a3822-12a5568-12.opn.html -- rank: 664

... 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:	66033

81 NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. CHERYL M. VARJABEDIAN, et al. -- rank: 664

... 39:6A-1.1 to -35, the corresponding amendments to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 and N.J.S.A. 39:6B-1, and ... 39:6A-3 and -4. With the adoption of AICRA, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 was also amended to except mandatory UM coverage from ... UM coverage with minimum limits of $15,000/$30,000, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1a, the basic policy provides no first-party UM coverage ... we have previously pointed out, with the passage of AICRA, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, have no reason to expect that they would not ...

docket:	a3372-05
court:	njappellate
decided:	2007-03-22
status:	published
citation:	391 N.J. Super. 253
Document Size:	40988

82 COMPREHENSIVE PAIN SOLUTIONS OF NEW JERSEY PC v. OMNI INSURANCE COMPANY c/o GOOD 2 GO AUTO INSURANCE -- rank: 661

... Omni was not subject to the New Jersey 'deemer' statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4. In plaintiff's ensuing summary action in the Superior ... A. 39:6A-3], the uninsured motorist insurance requirements of [N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(a)], and personal A-0862-22 3 injury protection ... to [N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4] or of [N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.3], whenever the automobile or motor vehicle insured under the policy is used or operated in this State. [N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4]. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4 provides that ... A-0862-22 7 [I.] THE TRIAL [JUDGE] ERRED SINCE N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 REQUIRES OMNI TO PROVIDE NO- FAULT MEDICAL EXPENSE COVERAGE ...

docket:	a0862-22
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2024-03-07
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	27139

83 ROBERT KATCHEN v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 661

... that GEICO failed 'to comply with the statutory requirements [of] N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1.' The parties thereafter came to an agreement that Rider ... incorrectly found the subject policy ambiguous and in violation of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. GEICO asserts its exclusion unambiguously bars UIM coverage for ... from the operator or owner of an uninsured motor vehicle . . . .' N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. This violation of the statutory mandate regarding UM coverage ... Cos., 354 N.J. Super. 491, 498 (App. Div. 2002); N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. Respondents further argue the lack of a distinction between ... rejected NJM's argument that either the coverage provisions of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(b), or the motorcycle exclusion provision in the liability ...

docket:	a5685-16
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2019-01-22
status:	Published
citation:	457 N.J.Super. 600 202 A.3d 627
Document Size:	37328

84 Pizzullo v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company -- rank: 659

... so, NJM is not entitled to immunity from suit under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9, in direct response to this flood of litigation. The ... if it could satisfy that statute's specified criteria. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9. The Appellate Division reasoned that the statute contained three ... at least the minimum coverage required by law. Ibid. (citing N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9, superseded this Court's earlier decision that an insurance ... other than to comply with the statutory notification requirements, see N.J.S.A. 17:28-1 to -8; N.J.S.A. 39:6A-23. Relying ... insurance package). In 1993, the Legislature passed the immunity statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 (the 1993 Act), in direct response to this flood ...

docket:	a-21-07
court:
decided:	2008-08-07
status:
citation:
Document Size:	70607

85 JOHN BAKER v. J.J. DELUCA COMPANY, INC. -- rank: 659

... judge erred in concluding that New Jersey's deemer statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, applies to it. In general, the deemer statute requires ... required in New Jersey for accidents occurring in New Jersey. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4. Celadon argues that the deemer statute does not apply ... the minimum required coverage under New Jersey law , including PIP. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4. As a self-insured, considered to have issued an ... vehicle insurance business in this State" within the terms of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4. Celadon should not be permitted to take advantage of ...

docket:	a4922-08
court:	superior court appellate division
decided:	2010-06-09
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	63441

86 CRISTINA DELA VEGA v. THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 656

... J. Mfrs. Ins. Co., 216 N.J. 552 (2014) (discussing N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f), which prohibits application of step-down provisions in ... 2020), a case involving a dispute over the 'deemer' statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, decided after the trial judge rendered her decision in ...

docket:	a2272-19
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2022-05-06
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	49861

87 Whitaker v. DeVilla -- rank: 654

... proper interpretation and constitutionality of New Jersey's “deemer statute” ( N.J.S.A . 17:28-1.4), which deems New Jersey's “verbal threshold” to apply ... the same limits as are required for liability coverage. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1a. Finally, the deemer statute guarantees that out-of-state ... instituted suit. Ibid. Keystone moved for summary judgment, contending that N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 should not be construed to require Keystone to pay ... 486-88. The Law Division upheld the statute's constitutionality:              N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 not only subjects the class in question to the ...

docket:	a-60-96
court:	njsupreme
decided:	1997-02-03
status:
citation:	147 N.J. 341
Document Size:	53096

88 RICHARD M. & LISA A. GRANGER V. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET ALS -- rank: 651

... highest UIM coverage, by combining or "stacking" the applicable coverages. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c. The motion judge ruled that because one policy was ... primary and the other excess, the anti-stacking language of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c did not preclude plaintiff's recovery for his injuries ... respective limits. We hold that the anti-stacking language of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c precludes a party from collecting an amount greater than ... should be barred due to the anti-stacking provisions of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c."     On the cross-motions for summary judgment the judge ... which was deemed excess, did not constitute stacking pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c. Liberty now appeals.     Here, there is no dispute that ... these circumstances that plaintiff contends the anti-stacking language of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c does not apply. He asserts that the statute ...

docket:	a1875-96
court:	njappellate
decided:	1997-12-30
status:	published
citation:	<a href=
Document Size:	17560

89 TIMOTHY F. LONG v. MERCURY INSURANCE GROUP -- rank: 651

... UIM coverage related to the limits chosen for liability coverage. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1b. The statute provides UIM coverage " shall be provided as ... to the Court's opinion by adding subsection f to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, known as the "Scutari Amendment." The amendment provides: A ... is covered under any other policy providing . . . underinsured motorist coverage. [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1f.] The statutory section explicitly rejects the step-down practice ... 408 N.J. Super. at 141. Construing the adoption of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1f as an expression of a public policy to eliminate ... other step-down cases decided prior to the addition of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1f, enforcement of the clause turned on the fact that ... step-down practice proscribed by the 2007 statutory amendment. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1f. It is a limitation on recovery, somewhat the ...

docket:	a3238-10
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2012-01-17
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	49761

90 COLLEEN DONATO VS MARKET TRANSITION FACILITY OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL -- rank: 648

... tortfeasors' insurance policies, she was not "underinsured," as defined by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1e, with respect to her own policy. Ibid. Therefore, she ... clear that he paid an additional $40 for that option.      N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 states, in pertinent part:             e. For the purpose of ... vehicle insurance policy held by the person seeking that recovery.         [ N.J.S.A. 17:28.1.1e.]     UIM coverage is not mandatory, though it must be ... to the insured as an option when insurance is purchased. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1b. The applicable portion of the MTF policy entitled "Uninsured ... vehicle insurance policy held by the person seeking that recovery." N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1e. As an occupant of the vehicle, plaintiff qualifies under ...

docket:	a4850-95
court:	njappellate
decided:	1997-03-21
status:	published
citation:	299 N.J.Super. 37
Document Size:	31814