Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

16 French v. New Jersey School Board Association Insurance Group -- rank: 787

... as contrary to public policy because it was repugnant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. The Appellate Division agreed, holding that once an insured has ...

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

17 Selective Ins. v. Thomas, et al. -- rank: 784

... 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 against ... 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 coverage limits ... Thomas , 177 N.J. 575 (2003)), and now reverse. I N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 provides that no motor vehicle policy or renewal insuring against ...

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

18 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 Jersey ... 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, the ...

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status:	unpublished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

19 A-0NELSON R. NELSON v. RIDER INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE NEW JERSEY PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY August 11, 2015 -- rank: 765

... cross-claim against Allstate seeking pro rata contribution pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c). Thereafter, the parties entered into a consent order that ... that under the undisputed and controlling facts of this case, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 precluded Allstate from enforcing the step-down clause in plaintiff ... to decide whether the Legislature's UM coverage requirement in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 is violated by an insurance policy provision that excludes UM ... provide UM coverage in standard automobile insurance policies pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 was not diminished or eliminated by the Legislature's creation ... judge found the exclusion inconsistent with the statutory requirement of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 that all motor vehicle insurance policies, except basic policies, must ... policy goals the Legislature sought to promote when it adopted N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, "'namely, to ease the financial burden on the Unsatisfied ...

docket:	a0729-13
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2014-09-10
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	22090

20 RAYMOND PINTO, JR. v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 760

... of coverage." Christafano , supra , 361 N.J. Super. at 234.      N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 governs UM/UIM coverage. Specifically, all motor vehicle liability policies ... has recovered under all bodily injury liability insurance or bonds[.] [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e).]     Thus, "the statute states that the determination whether a ... thus "held" the policy as that term is used in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. See Botti , supra , 361 N.J. Super. at 222-23 ...

docket:	A2234-02
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2004-01-21
status:	published
citation:	365 N.J. Super. 378 839 A.2d 134
Document Size:	72396

21 Augustine W. Badiali v. New Jersey Manufacturer’s Insurance Group -- rank: 755

... contractually and statutorily obligated to share this award equally. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c). Harleysville paid its half, $14,574.31. However NJM ... 149 N.J. 478 (1997). UIM coverage is defined by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)(1), as insurance for damages because of bodily injury ...

docket:	A-48-12
court:	NJ Supreme Court
decided:	2015-02-18
status:
citation:	220 N.J. 544 107 A.3d 1281
Document Size:	81125

22 PAUL RANSOM VS CIGNA INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL -- rank: 750

... Reliance Ins. Co. , 77 N.J. 563 , 571 (1978)). Moreover, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 is to be "construed liberally to effectuate the broadest range ...

docket:	a5377-95
court:	njappellate
decided:	1997-05-15
status:	published
citation:	300 N.J.Super. 444
Document Size:	25832

23 PAUL RANSOM VS CIGNA INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL -- rank: 750

... Reliance Ins. Co. , 77 N.J. 563 , 571 (1978)). Moreover, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 is to be "construed liberally to effectuate the broadest range ...

docket:	a5411-95
court:	njappellate
decided:	1997-05-15
status:	published
citation:	300 N.J.Super. 444
Document Size:	25832

24 MICHELE CHRISTAFANO v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY, -- rank: 738

... step-down provision, despite its unambiguous language, is invalid under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. In construing an insurance policy, we must "ensur[e] [its ... coverage bear to the total of the limits. (Emphasis added). N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, which requires a standard policy to provide UM coverage limits ... invalid as such a provision would render subparagraph c of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 surplusage. Id. at 500. Here, NJM's step- down provision ... Farm policy does not run afoul of the provisions of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of an order ...

docket:	A3152-02
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2003-06-17
status:	published
citation:	361 N.J. Super. 228 824 A.2d 112
Document Size:	26081

25 Denise A. Perrelli v. Bridget Pastorelle -- rank: 735

... Jersey Automobile Insurance Freedom of Choice and Cost Containment Act, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 (the Cost Containment Act), for “the purpose of making ...

docket:	A-22-10
court:	NJ Supreme Court
decided:	2011-06-01
status:
citation:
Document Size:	76489

26 WILMA CSAP v. AMERICAN MILLENNIUM INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 731

... 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 the ... 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 New ... 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 that ... 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-1 ...

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

27 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/appellate/a1312-18.opn.html -- rank: 718

... 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 ...

docket:
court:
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size:	29766

28 SATNAM SINGH v. LONELL CHESTNUT, JR -- rank: 713

... 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 insured ... 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 the ... 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 Pinto ... 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 provide ... 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 or ... May 10, 2007).] As indicated in the Committee's statement, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f) was intended to bar the enforcement of the ...

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

29 JOHN K. CUPIDO v. WILLIAM PEREZ -- rank: 711

... 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 ...

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

30 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. VS EILEEN CROCKER -- rank: 706

... 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.A ...

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