Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

91 LEROY NEBINGER VS MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY -- rank: 648

... as to require medical expense benefits (MEB) coverage pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6. We hold that such use of the vehicle does ... whether the minibus was a "motor bus" as defined by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.5. If so, MEB coverage is mandated by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.5 because it is a vehicle used to transport passengers ... is persuasive but not determinative of the issue before us.      N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6 provides:         a. Every owner, registered owner or operator of ... that the exception to the definition of "motor bus" in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.5 excludes hotel-to-airport buses, as well as school ...

docket:	a4696-96
court:	njappellate
decided:	1998-07-14
status:	published
citation:	312 N.J.Super. 400
Document Size:	16557

92 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

93 MARIA LOPEZ MENJIVAR v. GLORIA RAMIREZ -- rank: 648

... 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 ... 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 ... 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 ... 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 ... 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 ...

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status:	Unpublished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

94 LEROY NEBINGER VS MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY -- rank: 648

... as to require medical expense benefits (MEB) coverage pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6. We hold that such use of the vehicle does ... whether the minibus was a "motor bus" as defined by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.5. If so, MEB coverage is mandated by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.5 because it is a vehicle used to transport passengers ... is persuasive but not determinative of the issue before us.      N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6 provides:         a. Every owner, registered owner or operator of ... that the exception to the definition of "motor bus" in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.5 excludes hotel-to-airport buses, as well as school ...

docket:	a4662-96
court:	njappellate
decided:	1998-07-14
status:	published
citation:	312 N.J.Super. 400
Document Size:	16557

95 Denise A. Perrelli v. Bridget Pastorelle -- rank: 646

... 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 ...

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

96 MICHAEL KIRK v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 646

... the judge concluded defendants were entitled to immunity pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 because Allstate complied with its statutory obligation to apprise ... we agree that defendants are entitled to immunity pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9, which provides, in pertinent part: a. . . . [N]o person ... 3) the carrier complied with the coverage selection requirements of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(b). [ Baldassano v. High Point Ins. Co. , 396 N ... J. Super. 448, 453-54 (App. Div. 2007); see also N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9a.] There is no dispute that the coverage limits here ... and whether Allstate complied with the coverage selection requirements of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(b). "Gross negligence is the want or absence of ...

docket:	a2390-09
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-06-24
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	37214

97 DRIVE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY v. GENNADIY GISIS -- rank: 643

... injury protection coverage required to be provided in accordance with [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4], or although required did not maintain personal injury protection ... required" to maintain PIP or medical expense benefits coverage. Although N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6 requires the owners and operators of motor buses to ... amount of $250,000, school buses are expressly excluded by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.5(c) from the definition of a "motor bus." Thus ... with policies that provided medical expense benefits coverage pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6. Id. at 278. We held that, although N.J ...

docket:	a0951-10
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-06-29
status:	published
citation:	420 N.J. Super. 295 21 A.3d 216
Document Size:	20713

98 KHALID SANDERS v. JASMIN REYES -- rank: 641

... 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 ... 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 ... 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 ... 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 ...

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

99 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/appellate/a2101-19.opn.html -- rank: 638

... POINT II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OF N.J.S.A. [17:28-1 to -8] WHEN HOLDING [FARMERS] OWES [FREDERICK] ALL AVAILABLE UNINSURED ... required to provide uninsured motorist coverage under standard insurance policies. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(a). In turn, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c) provides in relevant part: If the insured had ... solely responsible for providing UM benefits to Frederick. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(c), USAA and Farmers must provide UM benefits on ...

docket:
court:
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size:	34622

100 RIDER INSURANCE COMPANY v. FIRST TRENTON COMPANIES -- rank: 638

... 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 ... 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 ... 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 ... 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 ... 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 ...

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

101 DOLORES KLEIBER v. STATE FARM INSURANCE CO., et al. -- rank: 638

... Jersey. As the motion judge correctly noted, in these circumstances, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 applies. This statute, which is known as the "deemer ... to satisfy at least the ...uninsured motorist insurance requirements of [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1]. . . . [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4.] The minimum amount of UM coverage required under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 is $15,000 per person and $30,000 per ... death of more than one person, in any one accident. . . . [ N.J.S.A . 17:28-1.1(a)(1) and (2).] The statute additionally provides: b ... liability policy limits for bodily injury and property damage, respectively. [ N.J.S.A . 17:28-1.1(b).] Accordingly, by reason of the operation of ...

docket:	A1614-04
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2006-02-02
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	26611

102 TIM & LIZ BROWN VS SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY & ET ALS -- rank: 633

... The issue presented by this appeal requires an interpretation of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c insofar as it addresses the rights of uninsured motorist ... entitled to such contribution as a matter of right under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c and affirm the judgment under review.     Plaintiff, Tim Brown ... under a concurrent UM policy, falls in direct conflict with N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1." Specifically, Atlantic points to the provisions of 108 N ... limited to, unauthorized settlements, nonduplication of coverage, subrogation and arbitration.         [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1d (emphasis added).]     It is undisputed in this case that ... of the Legislature's specific recognition of that right in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1d.     We now turn to the dismissal of Atlantic's claim for contribution against Selective under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1c, in which Atlantic sought a pro rata share ...

docket:	a3280-96
court:	njappellate
decided:	1998-05-04
status:	published
citation:	311 N.J.Super. 210
Document Size:	14725

103 LAWRENCE C. KARPER v. JOSE A. CALDERON -- rank: 631

... denied by order dated June 15, 2012. We conclude that N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)(1), which defines UIM coverage, and case law ... 544 , 561-62 (2015). New Jersey's UIM coverage statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)(1), "creates a framework within which one can ... has recovered under all bodily injury liability insurance or bonds[.] [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)(1).] The most important distinguishing characteristics of UIM ... liability insurance not the amount recovered by all injured parties. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)(1). For these reasons we conclude the motion ...

docket:	a4882-12
court:	New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2015-05-28
status:	Published
citation:
Document Size:	21005

104 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/supreme/a-43-17.opn.html -- rank: 628

... liability insurance is insufficient to reimburse the policyholder’s damages. N.J.S.A. 17:28- 1.1(e)(1); see also French v. N.J. Sch ...

docket:
court:
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size:	64980

105 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NJ v. EDWARD E. BAILEY, JR. -- rank: 628

... 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 ... 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 ... 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 ... 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 ... coverage in the minimum amounts of $15,000/$30,000. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1a. The statute, however, does not require that UIM coverage ...

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