Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

46 New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co. v. Hardy -- rank: 672

... provide optional uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. Those coverage requirements –- liability, PIP, and optional UM and UIM ...

docket:	a-79-02
court:	njsupreme
decided:	2004-01-27
status:
citation:	178 N.J. 327
Document Size:	45633

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

... 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:	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

48 CRISTINA DELA VEGA v. THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 669

... 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 business ...

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status:	Unpublished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

49 HAN HUNG LUONG v. FRANK T. GEORGE -- rank: 667

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status:	unpublished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

50 ROBERT KATCHEN v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 665

... 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 and ... 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 a ... 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, respondents ... 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 UM ... 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 section ...

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

51 COMPREHENSIVE PAIN SOLUTIONS OF NEW JERSEY PC v. OMNI INSURANCE COMPANY c/o GOOD 2 GO AUTO INSURANCE -- rank: 665

... 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 benefits ...

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status:	Unpublished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

52 KHALID SANDERS v. JASMIN REYES -- rank: 662

... 3.1 and the mandatory auto insurance provisions contained in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 to -1.9, specifically, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. Accordingly, in our de novo review, we owe no special ... holders are exempt from carrying uninsured motorist coverage required under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, which provides in pertinent part: a. Except for a basic ... enforceable and have been held not to run afoul of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. See Christafano v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co. , 361 N ... a personal auto policy runs afoul of the provisions of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 as written at that time). However, "[o]ur courts have ...

docket:	a3878-12
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2014-03-14
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	17611

53 LORRAINE AINSWORTH V. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 662

... 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 motorist ... 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 argument ...

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

54 COLLEEN DONATO VS MARKET TRANSITION FACILITY OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL -- rank: 660

... 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 this ...

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

55 LISA FALK v. KEVIN DONOVAN -- rank: 660

... was $400,000, if she was entitled to UIM benefits. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)(1). A-4236-18T4 4 appeal the trial court ... Harleysville Ins. Co., 140 N.J. 397, 404 (1995) (citing N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(b)). 'UIM coverage provides to an insured a measure of ...

docket:	a4236-18
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2020-04-28
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	23081

56 MARIA LOPEZ MENJIVAR v. GLORIA RAMIREZ -- rank: 660

... a basic policy was not considered to be uninsured. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(2)(d) (providing that 'uninsured motor vehicle[s]' shall not ... raised below and is inconsistent with the plain language of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(2)(d). A-0615-20 5 We review summary-judgment ... policy is not considered to be an 'uninsured motor vehicle.' N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(2)(d). Consequently, there was no ambiguity in State Farm ... with the maximum UIM coverage available under the policy. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f). Therefore, employees are a statutorily prescribed class of persons ... by a basic policy is not considered an uninsured vehicle. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(2)(d). The Association argues that the Legislature's attempt ...

docket:	a0615-20
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2021-12-22
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	19057

57 RIDER INSURANCE COMPANY v. FIRST TRENTON COMPANIES -- rank: 655

... 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 ... as damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles. . . ." N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(a).     The UM statute was amended in 1983 and 1998 ... an exclusion clause in violation of the statutory intent of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 and thus unenforceable. Phillips was a passenger who was injured ... UM statutory class violate these purposes. Id. at 242. Moreover, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 must be construed liberally to foster the protection UM affords ... addition, the exclusion itself conflicts with the plain language of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, it must be invalidated.     Affirmed. This archive is a service ...

docket:	a5054-00
court:	njappellate
decided:	2002-10-25
status:	published
citation:	354 N.J. Super. 491
Document Size:	18729

58 EXCHANGE v. SABRINA A. PEREZ -- rank: 650

... basic policy are not considered "uninsured motor vehicles" pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)(2). We observed that a person with the standard ...

docket:	a3100-11
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2013-09-13
status:	published
citation:	432 N.J.Super. 526 75 A.3d 1233
Document Size:	36937

59 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NJ v. EDWARD E. BAILEY, JR. -- rank: 650

... liability for "bodily injury" is the minimum limit required by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 . [(emphasis added).] Bailey settled with the tortfeasor for the full ... to the minimum limit required for UM benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, or $15,000/$30,000. AIIC asserted that because the ... 000 exceeded the minimum single person statutory UM limit of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, the tortfeasor's vehicle was not underinsured as defined in ... benefits is $15,000, the minimum UM limit required by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. Because this limit was below the liability limit contained in ...

docket:	a4681-04
court:	njappellate
decided:	2006-04-12
status:	unpublished
citation:	*CITE_PENDING*
Document Size:	37279

60 SHIRLEY WILSON v. ELVIN ORTIZ-PONCE -- rank: 650

... 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 under ... 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 sum ... 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 dollar ... 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 have ... 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 limits ...

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