Swish-e home page Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions


Limit search to:
Sort by:
Limit to:
    through    
 Results for ("N.J.S.A. 39:6a-4.2")   1 to 15 of 28 results. Run time: 0.431 seconds | Search time: 0.427 seconds    
 Page:1 2 Next 13
1 COALITION FOR QUALITY HEALTH CARE, et al. v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND INSURANCE, DIVISION OF INSURANCE, -- rank: 1000
... levy, execution, attachment or other process for satisfaction of debts." N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4(2). See footnote 8 8 The implementing regulation provides that "[i ...
docket: a3312-99
court: njappellate
decided: 2002-03-04
status: published
citation: 348 N.J. Super. 272
Document Size: 102897
2 PEGGY BIRMINGHAM v. TRAVELERS NEW JERSEY INS. CO -- rank: 902
... of their own. L. 1983, c. 362, § 12 (enacting N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2). Another significant addition in 1983 was the introduction of deductibles ...
docket: a0429-21
court: NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided: 2023-03-31
status: Published
citation:
Document Size: 48813
3 RUTGERS CASUALTY INS. CO. VS THE OHIO CASUALTY INS. CO. -- rank: 837
... the household of an insured.     In 1983 the Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2. This amendment established which PIP policy was "primary," L. 1983 ... an automobile insurance policy of his own. See footnote 2 [ N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2.]     The Act permits insurers to exclude an insured from PIP ... invalid. Id. at 614.     Then in 1983 the Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2, L. 1983, c . 362, § 12, which stated in pertinent part ... Indemnity contended that USF & G's coverage was `primary' under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 . . . and, therefore, Indemnity had no responsibility to pay to USF ... Div. 1992), we expressed, although in a different context, that " N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 was enacted to preclude redundant recovery." But most importantly, none ... used a single caption. Footnote: 2 The 1990 amendment to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2, L. 1990, c. 5, § 5 added the last sentence ...
docket: a4103-95
court: njappellate
decided: 1997-04-01
status: published
citation: 299 N.J.Super. 249
Document Size: 35044
4 CHARLOTTE SCHAEFER v. ALLSTATE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 821
... A. 17:28-1.6. Nevertheless, USF&G argues that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 provides: Primacy of coverages Except as provided in [ N.J ... for injuries sustained in any one accident. On its face, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 is directed solely at determining which coverage is "primary" when ... coverages of automobile policies governed by the legislative directive of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2.     Although N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 is limited by its plain terms to the determination of ... G contends that the omission of a provision comparable to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 from the 1991 legislation requiring insurers of buses to provide ... Div.), aff'd as modified , 98 N.J. 30 (1984)). N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 is designed to serve "the [legislative] policy of transactional ...
docket: a6668-03
court: njappellate
decided: 2005-04-15
status: published
citation: *CITE_PENDING*
Document Size: 33589
5 CHARLOTTE SCHAEFER v. ALLSTATE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 821
... A. 17:28-1.6. Nevertheless, USF&G argues that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 provides: Primacy of coverages Except as provided in [ N.J ... for injuries sustained in any one accident. On its face, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 is directed solely at determining which coverage is "primary" when ... coverages of automobile policies governed by the legislative directive of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2.     Although N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 is limited by its plain terms to the determination of ... G contends that the omission of a provision comparable to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 from the 1991 legislation requiring insurers of buses to provide ... Div.), aff'd as modified , 98 N.J. 30 (1984)). N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 is designed to serve "the [legislative] policy of transactional ...
docket: a4478-03
court: njappellate
decided: 2005-04-15
status: published
citation: *CITE_PENDING*
Document Size: 33589
6 CHARLOTTE SCHAEFER v. ALLSTATE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 821
... A. 17:28-1.6. Nevertheless, USF&G argues that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 provides: Primacy of coverages Except as provided in [ N.J ... for injuries sustained in any one accident. On its face, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 is directed solely at determining which coverage is "primary" when ... coverages of automobile policies governed by the legislative directive of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2.     Although N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 is limited by its plain terms to the determination of ... G contends that the omission of a provision comparable to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 from the 1991 legislation requiring insurers of buses to provide ... Div.), aff'd as modified , 98 N.J. 30 (1984)). N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 is designed to serve "the [legislative] policy of transactional ...
docket: a5757-03
court: njappellate
decided: 2005-04-15
status: published
citation: 376 N.J. Super. 475
Document Size: 33613
7 DAVID GOYCO v. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 745
... The policy provided No-Fault Benefits Coverage ('NFBC') pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 On November 22, 2021, plaintiff filed a claim with defendant ...
docket: a3471-21
court: NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided: 2023-07-05
status: Unpublished
citation:
Document Size: 17580
8 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/appellate/a2101-19.opn.html -- rank: 721
... the terms of another policy . . . .' These exclusions are consistent with N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2, which provides in relevant part: [T]he [PIP] coverage of ...
docket:
court:
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size: 34622
9 KIMBERLY BRITTEN v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. -- rank: 697
... the defendant's contention that the anti-stacking provisions of N.J.S.A . 39:6A-4.2 preclude plaintiff from securing benefits under both policies. We reverse ... Watts , 69 N.J. Super. 198, 205 (App. Div. 1961).      N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 authorizes PIP benefits to the named insured and resident members ... 84 (App. Div. 1997). We disagree. The plain language of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 precludes recovery of medical benefits from multiple sources. Martin , supra ... We instead concluded that the Legislature "did not intend by N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 to preclude a seriously injured victim from recovering the statutorily ... both polices was banned under the anti-stacking provisions of N.J.S.A . 39:6A-4.2, that argument was abandoned prior to the return date of ... King's analysis in Martin , [ supra ,] of the import of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2." Parisi , supra , 296 N.J. Super. at 183-84. ...
docket: A2440-05
court: NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided: 2007-01-12
status: published
citation: 389 N.J. Super. 556 914 A.2d 305
Document Size: 17844
10 INGERSOLL V. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY -- rank: 667
... attorneys). PER CURIAM     The New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 (section 4.2). That statute prohibits recovery of personal-injury ...
docket: a-21-94
court: njsupreme
decided: 1994-12-13
status:
citation: 138 N.J. 236
Document Size: 27464
11 Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company v. The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company -- rank: 667
... HELD: Once an injured party is paid PIP benefits under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2, a “follow-the-family” exclusion operates to preclude contribution among ... to receive "primary coverage" from the named insured's carrier, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2, Rutgers paid PIP benefits to each victim.     Rutgers then sought ... S.A. 39:6A-11. They also contended that, under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2, Rutgers was primarily and exclusively liable for payment to its ...
docket: a-89-97
court: njsupreme
decided: 1998-04-20
status:
citation: 153 N.J. 205
Document Size: 28218
12 DANA M. WARNIG v. ATLANTIC COUNTY SPECIAL SERVICES, et al. -- rank: 627
... of PIP benefits subject to the anti-stacking provision of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2. Id. at 238.          The Court rejected Aetna's argument, holding ... medical expense, or med-pay benefits, are not subject to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2, the anti-stacking provision. The Court explained the system of ...
docket: a6671-01
court: njappellate
decided: 2003-10-27
status: published
citation: 363 N.J. Super. 563
Document Size: 26522
13 VALERIE CHEEK v. CITIZENS UNITED RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE (CURE) -- rank: 624
... provided primary coverage for plaintiff's PIP benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2. CURE filed the third-party complaint on August 17, 2009 ...
docket: a0573-10
court: NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided: 2012-04-19
status: unpublished
citation:
Document Size: 32995
14 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 624
... immediate and prompt compensation to the victims of automobile injury.      N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2 (declaring the primacy of carriers obligated to pay PIP), together ... Country-Wide posits is hypothetical. It is clear that under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2, Allstate is the "primary" carrier on the facts of this ...
docket: A0366-99
court: NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided: 2001-01-23
status: published
citation:
Document Size: 23280
15 STEVEN HARBOLD V. GERRI OLIN -- rank: 616
... struck by an object propelled by or from such automobile.         [ N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2, a named insured's own PIP coverage is primarily liable ... s mother's PIP coverage provided plaintiff's medical expenses. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2.     Significantly, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8.1, entitled ... 37 , 43 (App. Div. 1992).     Nonetheless, plaintiff argues that, under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2. Additionally, if the claimant is an immediate family member who ...
docket: a6246-94
court: njappellate
decided: 1996-01-31
status: published
citation: 287 N.J.Super. 35
Document Size: 18239
 Page:1 2 Next 13
Powered by Swish-e swish-e.org

Valid HTML 4.01!