Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

31 NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. CHERYL M. VARJABEDIAN, et al. -- rank: 704

... 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 the ... 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 the ... 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 be ...

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

32 Camie Livsey v. Mercury Insurance Group -- rank: 704

... 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 the ... 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 held ... 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 , 174 ... 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 on ...

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

33 MELVIN REID v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 701

... 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 limits ... 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 plaintiffs ... 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 (App ...

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status:	Unpublished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

34 Magnifico v. Rutgers Casualty Insurance Co. -- rank: 699

... 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 anti-stacking ... law generally has acknowledged that "the 'anti-stacking' amendment to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 effectively overruled Motor Club ." French , supra , 149 N.J. at ...

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

35 Edward Zabilowicz v. Roslyne Kelsey -- rank: 696

... S.A. 39:6A-3, uninsured motorist insurance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, and personal injury protection benefits pursuant to N.J.S ...

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

36 WAYNE ADAMS v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 694

... 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; as ... 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 insurance ... 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, its ... 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 Insurance ... 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, explaining ... 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 liability ...

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

37 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/supreme/a2718-14.opn.html -- rank: 694

... 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; as ... 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 insurance ... 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, its ... 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 Insurance ... 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, explaining ... 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 liability ...

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

38 MARKET TRANSITION FACILITY OF NEW JERSEY VS TERESA PARISI-LUSARDI -- rank: 694

... 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 motor ...

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

39 Mark R. Krzykalski v. David T. Tindall -- rank: 691

... 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.J ... 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.J ... 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 but ...

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

40 HARRIET BERGER v. FIRST TRENTON INDEMNITY COMPANY, -- rank: 689

... 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 said ... 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. Super ... 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 to ... 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 and ... 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 qualify as ... noted that "[t]here is nothing in the purpose of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 that would limit its application to passenger automobiles as ...

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

41 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, urges ... 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 a ... 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 coverage ...

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

42 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, urges ... 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 a ... 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 coverage ...

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

43 JOSE L. CHAVEZ v. THE PROFORMANCE INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 684

... 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 ... 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 pari materia ... policy endorsement approved by the Commissioner of Insurance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 (continued) (continued) 11 A-5665-06T1 August 14, 2008 Document ...

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

44 JONATHAN KLAMA v. SANDRO ZUNIGA-ELIZANDO -- rank: 677

... 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 the ... 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 motorist ... 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. A ... 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 maximum ... 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 coverages ...

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

45 Robert Ferrante v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group -- rank: 674

... 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 an ... 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 each ... 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 strong ...

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