Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

1 Pizzullo v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company -- rank: 1000

... suit arising from an insured’s election of coverage. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a). 2 In 1987 , plaintiff Michael Pizzullo (Michael) telephoned his ... policy for Dorothea, NJM was nonetheless immune from liability under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a). Following a two-day bench trial, the trial court ... so, NJM is not entitled to immunity from suit under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a). 1. The statute provides an insurer with immunity from ... of a given level of motor vehicle insurance coverage . . . .” N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a). The Court’s analysis of this matter cannot be ... to them. In 1993, the Legislature passed the immunity statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9, in direct response to this flood of litigation. The statute ... suit arising from an insured’s election of coverage. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a). The trial court, after first concluding that the ...

docket:	a-21-07
court:
decided:	2008-08-07
status:
citation:	196 N.J. 251
Document Size:	83615

2 LLEDON JAMES v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 947

... from civil liability as a matter of law pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a). Alternatively, State Farm claimed the PIP benefits coverage in ... judgment relying on the immunity provided by the Legislature in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a). The Law Division judge assigned to this case granted ... finding it was immune from liability in this case under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a). The judge found the record indisputably showed Lynval signed ... verified complaint with prejudice pursuant to the immunity provisions in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a). In this appeal, plaintiffs argue the Law Division erred when it found State Farm immune from liability under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a). The New Jersey Association for Justice, appearing as amicus ... is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 states in pertinent part: . . . . no . . . insurer . . . shall be liable ...

docket:	a4761-15
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2019-01-18
status:	Published
citation:	457 N.J.Super. 576 202 A.3d 23
Document Size:	32641

3 KRISTI DRYSTEN v. PAOLA N. CHIESA -- rank: 935

... for summary judgment claiming it was immune from liability under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9. USAA further argued that, even if it were not immune ... matter of law because it is immune from liability under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 states in pertinent part: a. [N]o . . . insurer . . . shall be ... willful, wanton or grossly negligent act of commission or omission. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 was enacted "to abrogate prior judicial decisions holding insurers, agents ... N.J. 570 (1995). The requirements for obtaining immunity under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 are that (1) the named insured must have had at ... insurer must have complied with the coverage selection requirements of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(b). Baldassano v. High Point Ins. Co. , 396 N. ...

docket:	a4789-13
court:	New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2015-06-08
status:	Published
citation:
Document Size:	36407

4 WENDY KIRK, v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 888

... State Farm and Joseph Ciraulo based on immunity pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a) and denying her reconsideration motion. Because genuine issues of ... Ciraulo were statutorily immune from plaintiff's action pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a) and that '[n]o A-2445-20 6 reasonable ... in this case as being willful or grossly negligent under [N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a)] so to negate the immunity given under the same ... an abuse of discretion. Branch, 244 N.J. at 582. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a), which is the basis of the statutory immunity found ... Co., 277 N.J. Super. 236, 237 (App. Div. 1994) (' N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a) provides that no person shall be liable in an ... o.b., 142 N.J. 570 (1995). The Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(a) 'to abrogate prior judicial decisions holding insurers, agents, ...

docket:	a2445-20
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2023-01-13
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	27987

5 PAUL J. BANACH v. ALEX TARAKANOV -- rank: 867

... further concluded that plaintiffs' claim against NJM is barred by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9. Because the record reveals factual questions whether NJM satisfied the ... judge further found that NJM was "entitled to immunity under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9," providing it with "a shield against both claims for reformation ... not only loosely track the exception to the immunity statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9, they also allege conduct that would violate the CFA's ... properly granted summary judgment, claiming entitlement to immunity, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9, which provides, in pertinent part: a. [N]o . . . insurer . . . shall ... willful, wanton or grossly negligent act of commission or omission. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 was enacted "to abrogate prior judicial decisions holding insurers, agents ... 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. ...

docket:	a5505-14
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2017-09-12
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	60814

6 MICHAEL PIZZULLO et al. v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 808

... cannot trump the public policy enunciated by the Legislature in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9, conferring immunity to insurance carriers in actions brought by the ... to policies issued on and after the effective date of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9, the special coverage selection requirements of subsection b must be ... detail the tumultuous history of litigation predating the adoption of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9. During these times, our courts recognized the cognizability of "claims ... elsewhere. We note, however, that Harr predates the passage of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 by thirty-four years. We are thus compelled to conclude ...

docket:	A1395-05
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2007-03-08
status:	published
citation:	391 N.J. Super. 113 917 A.2d 276
Document Size:	74608

7 Pizzullo v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company -- rank: 648

... 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 statute ... 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 requirements ... 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 company ... 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 of ...

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

8 MICHAEL KIRK v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 641

... 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 the ... 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 . . . shall ... 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 ... 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, failure ...

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

9 VINCENT F. BALDASSANO v. HIGH POINT INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 611

... comply with the statutory requirements to qualify for immunity under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 because (1) the agent, not the insured, selected the level ... Div. 1997) (holding that "the special coverage selection requirements of [ N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9(b)] must be met" before affording immunity under N.J ... 39:6A-23 "are preconditions to qualifying for immunity under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9"). Pursuant to the statute, "a written notice identifying [all coverage ... we should look to Avery , because there we held that N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 requires a two-step process to effectuate the coverage selection ...

docket:	A2183-06
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2007-11-08
status:	published
citation:	396 N.J.Super. 448 934 A.2d 678
Document Size:	44651

10 NICOLE PIERIDES v. GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 537

... A. 39:6A-23; that GEICO violated that statute and N.J .S.A . 17:28-1.9 in failing to do so and therefore deprived plaintiffs of ...

docket:	a2783-08
court:	superior court appellate division
decided:	2010-04-19
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	90263

11 GREGORY B. EVANGELOU VS SPARTACO V. TERZANO ET AL -- rank: 527

... additional or increased limits of UM/UIM coverage pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9, noting that the statute had been recently construed by Strube ... Strube v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill. , supra , which construed N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 to be retroactive, and, if necessary, also evaluate the NJAFIUA ...

docket:	a4752-95
court:	njappellate
decided:	1997-03-12
status:	published
citation:	298 N.J.Super. 467
Document Size:	28950