Automobile Insurance Update 2012 Co-Sponsored by the Automobile Reparations Committee

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Automobile Insurance Update 2012 Co-Sponsored by the Automobile Reparations Committee"

Transcription

1 Civil Litigation Track Automobile Insurance Update 2012 Co-Sponsored by the Automobile Reparations Committee A review of the cases and statutes over the last year that deal with automobile insurance issues and trends. Speaker: Gerald H. Baker, Esq. Javerbaum Wurgaft PC Daniel Rosner, Esq. Rosner Law Offices

2

3

4

5

6 By Gerald H. Baker The State of New Jersey adopted the Automobile Insurance Reparation Reform Act (known as the No Fault Act) in The act provides that every standard automobile liability insurance policy shall contain personal injury protection (PIP) benefits, without regard to fault, including medical expenses up to $250,000; income continuation up to $5,200; essential services up to $4,380; death benefits up to $9,580; and funeral expenses up to $1,000. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4. As initially enacted, the No Fault Act barred civil suits for soft-tissue injuries unless the claimant s medical expenses exceeded a monetary threshold (originally $200 and later increased to $1,500). The act was amended in 1988 to replace the monetary threshold with a verbal threshold : a description in words of the type of injury that would permit an accident victim to recover damages for noneconomic loss (defined as pain and suffering ). In 1998, the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act (AICRA) replaced the old verbal threshold with a new verbal threshold (called the limitation on lawsuit option ). The type of injuries that meet the old and new verbal threshold are discussed in the article in this supplement entitled History of the Verbal Threshold. Since 1988, there have been over 120 published opinions that discuss some aspect of the verbal threshold. Each of these cases is listed by subject in the Verbal Threshold Citator included in this supplement. Each year since 1992, I have prepared a special Automobile Injury supplement to the New Jersey Law Journal which is entitled A Look at No Fault. The supplement reviews all of the published verbal threshold cases from the prior year. This year, I will review three new Supreme Court cases that were published

7 in 2011 and deal with the loss limitation provisions of the No Fault Act. In Perrelli, the Court held that the owner of an uninsured automobile who was injured while a passenger in her own vehicle was barred from bringing suit for economic or noneconomic loss. Likewise, in Aronberg, the Court found that the mother of an intoxicated driver was not entitled to bring a wrongful death claim for pecuniary loss. However, in Voss, the Court ruled that an intoxicated driver was permitted to bring a dram shop claim against the tavern that served him alcohol while he was visibly intoxicated. Loss Limitations The New Jersey No Fault Act requires the owner of every automobile registered in this state to maintain liability insurance coverage, personal injury protection (PIP) benefits and uninsured motorist coverage. One of the purposes of the act (the reparation objective ) is to ensure that there are financially responsible persons available to meet the claims of persons wrongfully injured in automobile accidents. Selected Risks v. Zullo, 48 N.J. 362 (1966). Nonetheless, the legal rights of accident victims to recover damages for economic and noneconomic loss are not unlimited. The act was amended in 1985 to limit the rights of three classes of acci Dram Shop Claims: Loss Limitations Do Not Apply But loss limitations do apply to owner-passenger of uninsured vehicle and to wrongful death actions New Jersey Law Journal VOL NO 7 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012 ESTABLISHED 1878 & Automobile Injury 2012 NJAJ Pines Manor Seminar Guide A Look at No Fault in 2011

8 Reprinted with permission from the FEBRUARY 13, 2012 edition of New Jersey Law Journal ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.

9 dent victims, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5: Any person who owns an uninsured 1. automobile who is injured while operating an uninsured automobile ; Any person who is convicted or pleads 2. guilty to driving while intoxicated who is injured as a result of the accident ; and Any person who acts with specific 3. intent to cause injury to himself or others who is injured as a result of an accident arising from such conduct. As initially enacted, these statutory provisions (called loss limitations ) provided that any person within the three classes would be required to meet the old monetary threshold before bringing a claim for economic or noneconomic loss. The statute was amended in 1988 to replace the monetary threshold with the new verbal threshold. Finally, the No Fault Act was amended in 1997 to eliminate all reference to a threshold. Instead, the act provided that any injured person within the three classes (uninsured, intoxicated or intentional) shall have no cause of action for recovery of economic or noneconomic loss. The loss limitation provisions of the No Fault Act were held to be constitutional in Caviglia v. Royal Tours, 178 N.J. 460 (2004), a case involving a culpably uninsured driver. The Court emphasized that the statute advances two important objectives of New Jersey s automobile insurance laws: a very powerful incentive to force compliance with compulsory insurance and cost containment. Uninsured Automobiles In Perrelli v. Pastorelli, 206 N.J. 193 (2011), the Court considered whether a passenger in her own uninsured automobile was entitled to pursue a claim for economic and noneconomic loss. The plaintiff, Denise Perrelli, was the owner of a 1992 Oldsmobile Cutlass. Initially, the

10 vehicle was insured by NJM; however, the policy was cancelled for nonpayment of premiums. Perrelli was seriously injured while riding as a passenger in her own uninsured automobile. She filed a complaint against Bridget and Paul Pastorelli, the owner and driver of the other automobile. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the action was barred because the plaintiff was the owner of an uninsured automobile. The trial court denied the motion and the Supreme Court granted the defendants motion for leave to appeal. At the outset, the court recognized that the best indicator of the intent of the legislature is the plain language of the statute. However, if a literal interpretation of the language would create a manifestly absurd result that is contrary to public policy, then the spirit of the law should control. The Court noted that the statute refers to any person who owns any uninsured automobile and is injured while operating an uninsured automobile. While the statute does not define an operator, the Court conceded that a literal interpretation of the language would construe the provisions as applying only to the driver of the automobile, not a passenger, even if the passenger was the owner. Nonetheless, the Court reasoned that such an interpretation would lead to a manifestly absurd result that would be contrary to public policy. The Court explained that the purposes of the loss limitation provision are to reduce the cost of automobile insurance, to relieve congestion of court calendars and to increase compliance with compulsory insurance laws. Thus, it would be against public policy to permit someone who owns an uninsured vehicle to recover economic and noneconomic loss solely because someone else was driving the car. COMMENTARY: I do not agree with the reasoning of the Court. First, it is a basic axiom of statutory construction that

11 words should be given their ordinary meaning. While the No Fault Act (Section 6 of Title 39) does not define operator, the Motor Vehicle Act (Section 1 of Title 39) defines an operator as the person who has actual physical control of a vehicle. N.J.S.A. 39:1-1. Under the facts of this case, it is clear that the plaintiff was not the operator of the vehicle since she was only a passenger and had no physical control. Second, the Court suggested that the loss limitation provisions would provide a very powerful incentive and greater compliance with compulsory insurance laws. In reality, however, ordinary policyholders do not read an insurance policy or understand its complex terms. Likewise, Gerald H. Baker is the author of the articles in this special issue. He is a certified trial attorney who regularly conducts seminars on automobile insurance including the verbal threshold, UM/ UIM coverage and PIP benefits for the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education, the New Jersey Association for Justice (formerly ATLA-NJ), the New Jersey State Bar Foundation and the New Jersey Law Journal. He received his B.A. from Cornell University in 1964 and his J.D. from Yale Law School in He is a member of the bars of the states of New Jersey and New York. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court; the U. S. Circuit Courts of Appeal for the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits; and the U. S. District Courts for the District of New Jersey and the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. Baker represents plaintiffs in personal injury and wrongful death cases and is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum. He is a member of the New Jersey State Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association, the American Bar Association and the Hudson County Bar Association. He serves on the board of governors of NJAJ and the board of trustees of the Hudson County Bar Association and the Hudson County Bar Foundation. He is a member of the NJSBA Legislative Committee and the chairman of the Special Committee on Automobile Reparations. He has been honored with the ATLA-NJ Gold

12 Medal, the NJSBA Distinguished Legislative and Amicus awards, the Trial Attorneys of New Jersey Trial Bar Award and the ICLE Alfred C. Clapp Laureate. Baker was formerly a partner in the Hoboken law firm of Baker, Pedersen & Robbins and is currently counsel to Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins in Springfield, Newark, Freehold, Ridgewood, Elizabeth and Hoboken. 207 N.J.L.J. 486 NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL, FEBRUARY 13,

13 the ordinary owner of an automobile does not know that the failure to purchase insurance will bar all legal rights for personal injuries. In the absence of such knowledge, there is no evidence to support the Court s bold statement that the loss limitations would induce compliance with compulsory insurance laws. Third, the loss limitation provisions were held constitutional in Caviglia, as applied to a culpably uninsured plaintiff: a person who had knowledge that she was uninsured. In this case, the Court has disregarded the plaintiff s claim that she was not culpably uninsured. Perrelli claims that she moved eight months before the accident, that she does not recall if she notified her insurance company of the change in address but she believed her insurance was still in effect on the day of the accident. At the least, the plaintiff should have been entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether she knew or should have known that her automobile was uninsured. I note that the courts are reluctant to expand the scope of legislation beyond its plain language. That caution should be especially followed when the expansion of a statute is accompanied by a limitation of legal rights. The failure to insure an automobile is a serious motor vehicle violation that should be accompanied by fines, the loss of registration privileges and the loss of a driver s license. However, the equation of a motor vehicle violation with the loss of legal rights to compensation is a quantum leap, and one that is beyond the knowledge of the average policyholder. I was comfortable with the statute when it was amended in 1985 and 1988 to apply the monetary threshold and verbal thresholds to the three classes of persons who are specified in the loss limitation provisions. However, the 1997 amendment is more aggressive since it bars all claims for economic or noneconomic loss. As Justice Albin understates in Aronberg (digested in this issue), some may think that such a result in too draconian and not

14 necessary to enforce compliance with the No Fault Act. I am one of those who think that the statute is punitive, not instructive. It is my opinion that the loss limitation provision should be interpreted literally and should apply only to the owner of an uninsured automobile who is injured while operating (in actual physical control) of an uninsured automobile, not to a person who is a passenger in her own uninsured automobile. Dram Shop In Voss v. Tranquilino, 206 N.J. 93 (2011), the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division that the loss limitations provisions of the No Fault Act do not bar a dram shop claim against a liquor licensee. The plaintiff, Frederick Voss, was a patron at Tiffany s Restaurant and was served a sufficient amount of alcohol to reach a blood alcohol concentration more than twice the legal limit. After leaving the restaurant, his motorcycle was struck by an automobile owned and operated by the defendant, Kristoff Tranquilino. Voss pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated. Nonetheless, he filed suit against the driver of the automobile that struck him and the restaurant that served him the alcohol while he was visibly intoxicated. The trial court dismissed the suit against the driver under the loss limitation provisions of the No Fault Act since Voss pleaded guilty to DWI. However, the court held that the statute does not bar the plaintiff s claim against the bar under the New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act (commonly known as the Dram Shop Act). The Appellate Division affirmed. 413 N.J. Super. 82 (App. Div. 2010). See digest, Gerald H. Baker, A Look at No Fault 2010, 203 N.J.L.J. 441, Feb. 14, The court recognized that a literal reading of the statute suggests that an intoxicated plaintiff is barred from making all claims, whether against a negligent driver or a negligent server.

15 Nonetheless, the court explained that the two statutes serve different purposes. The No Fault Act restricts a person s civil remedy against a negligent driver, while the Dram Shop Act creates a civil remedy against a server of alcoholic beverages. Thus, the loss limitation provisions of the No Fault Act should be limited to actions against the negligent operators of automobiles and should not bar a claim against a licensed server. The Supreme Court affirmed in a per curiam opinion for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division. In addition, the Court noted that the Dram Shop Act was enacted in 1987, while the No Fault Act was amended in There is nothing in the legislative history to suggest that the Legislature intended to override the Dram Shop Act, and there was no reason for the court to repeal the statute by implication. In fact, the two statutes could co-exist because they both deter drunk driving: the No Fault Act deters a person from driving while intoxicated, and the Dram Shop Act deters a liquor licensee from serving alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron. In a strong dissent from unlikely allies, Justices Albin and Rivera-Soto argued that the plain language of the statute bars an intoxicated driver from bringing all claims and it makes no difference whether the tortfeasor is a person who ran a red light or a stop sign, or one who served him drinks at the bar he last visited. Instead, the dissenters suggest that the court has rewritten the statute by judicial decree based upon its own public-policy analysis to permit claims against licensed servers of alcohol. COMMENTARY: While the loss limitation provisions of the No Fault Act bar all civil actions for economic or noneconomic loss, there are two anomalies in the law. First, an intoxicated driver is not barred from receiving PIP benefits. In Walcott v. Allstate, 376 N.J. Super. 384 (App. Div. 2005), the court limited the exclusion to third-party liability claims and not to PIP claims.

16 Second, in Woodworth v. Joyce, 373 N.J. Super. 114 (App. Div. 2004), the court held that an intoxicated defendant is not barred from asserting the verbal threshold as a defense. Certainly, this decision conflicts with the assertions of the Supreme Court in Perrelli and Voss that the loss limitation provisions are a very powerful incentive to produce greater compliance with the compulsory insurance laws. There is simply no reason to bar an intoxicated plaintiff from bringing an affirmative cause of action for economic or noneconomic loss but permitting an intoxicated defendant to raise the verbal threshold as a defense. The incentive should be the same. Judicial Legislation These two cases, Perrelli and Voss, are good examples of judicial legislation. In both cases, the Supreme Court sets forth several basic rules of statutory instruction: The court must ascertain the intent of 1. 3 NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL, FEBRUARY 13, N.J.L.J. 486

17 the legislature. The best indicator of legislative intent 2. is the statutory language. The court should look at the plain lan3. guage of the statute. The court should ascribe ordinary 4. meaning to the words in the statute. If the language of the statute is clear 5. on its face, the court should enforce the statute as written. The court should not rewrite a stat6. ute based upon its own public policy analysis. If a literal interpretation of a statute 7. would be contrary to public policy or create a manifestly absurd result, the spirit of the law should control. What is the difference between plain language and the spirit of the law? In his dissent in Voss, Justice Albin warned that there is a fine line between interpreting statutory language and engrafting a judicial standard over that language. (Emphasis added.) Nonetheless, in both cases, the fine line has been blurred and the Supreme Court has elected to rewrite the loss limitation provisions of the No Fault Act. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5. In Perrelli, the Court rewrote the statutory provisions with respect to uninsured drivers. In Voss, the Court rewrote the statutory provisions with respect to intoxicated drivers. As initially enacted in 1985, the loss limitation provisions refer to a person who is injured while operating an uninsured automobile. The statute was amended in 1988 and 1997 with no change in this language. Yet, in Perrelli, the Supreme Court has rewritten the statutory language to apply to a person while operating or causing to be operated an uninsured automobile. In Voss, the statute bars all claims for

18 economic or noneconomic loss sustained by a person who is convicted or pleads guilty to DWI. Yet, the Court has rewritten the statutory language to exempt claims arising under the Dram Shop Act. With all due respect to the Supreme Court, it is my opinion that such draftsmanship should be left to the Legislature. As Justice Albin says in Voss, judicial restraint commands that we not tinker with a clearly expressed, unambiguous statute that has a rational basis and purpose. If the Legislature has failed to express its true intent, it is for the Legislature, not the Court, to correct the statute. I understand that the Supreme Court has advanced sound reasons for enforcing the spirit of the law rather than its literal interpretation. Both cases are intended to deter drunk driving. In Perrelli, the Court intends to deter the owners of uninsured automobiles from allowing their vehicles to be operated while they are intoxicated. In Voss, the Court intends to deter taverns from serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons who may operate motor vehicles after leaving the bar. Yet, the Legislature is presumed to have knowledge of the statutory and case law. The Legislature knew that the loss limitation provisions applied to the operators of automobiles. If they had wanted to bar all claims by persons who allow their uninsured vehicles to be operated by someone else, they could have said so. The Legislature knew that the Dram Shop Act permitted claims against licensed servers of alcohol. If they had wanted to bar all claims by intoxicated drivers, they could have said so. The real problem with interpreting legislative intent is that the spirit of the law will vary depending upon a court s public policy analysis. For example, I feel that the spirit of the law should permit an uninsured owner to make a claim even if they are a passenger in their own automobile. Likewise, I feel that the spirit of the law should permit an intoxicated driver to sue a licensed server.

19 Apparently, the Supreme Court agrees with me in Voss (with notable dissents by Justices Albin and Rivera-Soto) but disagrees with me in Perrelli. Whose public policy analysis is correct? Who has the right spirit? Wrongful Death In Aronberg v. Tolbert, 207 N.J. 587 (2011), the Court considered whether the loss limitation provisions bar claims under both the Survival Act and the Wrongful Death Act. The decedent, Lawrence Rosenberg, was killed in an accident while operating an uninsured automobile that was owned by him. His mother, the administratrix of his estate, brought an action against the negligent driver under both statutes. The trial court dismissed the survival claim since the decedent was the owner and operator of an uninsured automobile. However, the court refused to dismiss the wrongful death claim. The Appellate Division affirmed. 413 N.J. Super. 562 (App. Div. 2010). See digest, Gerald H. Baker, A Look at No Fault in 2010 ; 203 N.J.L.J. 443, Feb. 14, The court noted that the two statutes serve different purposes. The Survival Act protects the legal rights of the decedent (for his personal injuries) while the Wrongful Death Act protects the legal rights of his beneficiaries (for their pecuniary loss). Thus, the Appellate Division concluded that the loss limitation provisions of the No Fault Act clearly bar the survival claim of the uninsured decedent; however, the statutory bar is expressly limited to the claim of the uninsured driver. The decedent s beneficiaries, who are innocent of the decedent s culpable act of driving while uninsured, are not barred from bringing a claim under the Wrongful Death Act. The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed. The Court noted that the plain language of the No Fault Act bars any person

20 who fails to maintain insurance coverage from bringing a suit for economic or noneconomic loss. Likewise, the plain language of the Wrongful Death Act permits a decedent s beneficiaries to bring an action for pecuniary loss only if the decedent was entitled... to maintain an action for damages resulting from the injury. The Court read the language of the two statutes together and concluded that the decedent, the operator of an uninsured automobile owned by him, would not have been able to maintain an action for damages under the No Fault Act if death had not ensued. Thus, his beneficiaries were not entitled to bring an action under the Wrongful Death Act N.J.L.J. 486 NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL, FEBRUARY 13,

21

22 DANIEL E. ROSNER*+ EDWARD J. TUCKER PASQUALE PICARIELLO** TARIQ H. CHAUDHRI FRED R. BRAVERMAN* NEIL STACKHOUSE THERESA GALLO ROSNER STEPHANIE A. HARRIS SHANNA M. GEVERD IRINA SHAPOVALOVA MEMBER NJ BAR * MEMBER NJ & PA BAR ** MEMBER NJ, NY & PA BAR + CERTIFIED BY THE NJ SUPREME COURT AS A CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY OF COUNSEL PARALEGAL STAFF ROSNER LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 311 W. LANDIS AVENUE VINELAND, NJ TEL: (856) FAX: (856) PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE Law Office of Daniel E. Rosner, PC 2 Penn Center Plaza 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA TEL: (215) FAX: (215) NJSBA and ICLE Presents: Auto Insurance Update 2012 Thresholds and PIP: All in the Family Written materials submitted by: Daniel E. Rosner, Esq. Certified Civil Trial Attorney Tariq Chaudhri, Esq. Friday, April 27, 2012 The below hypothetical fact pattern will help illustrate how important resident familial relationships are under NJ law to determine what PIP coverage is available and what tort threshold applies when one is injured in a NJ accident.

23 FACTS: Archie is driving his late model SUV with his wife Edith, his daughter Gloria and her husband Mike(Meathead) along with the next door neighbor George, and his son Lionel. For our hypothetical, they all live in Vineland, NJ. George s car is in the repair shop and Archie agreed to take George and his son to their dry cleaning shop. They are hit by a 2002 Toyota Prius driven by Maude in the middle of the intersection of and Landis Avenues in Vineland, NJ. As a result of the impact, Archie s SUV strikes a pedestrian, Ricky Ricardo, who was crossing in the crosswalk at the time of the accident. Everyone involved was injured and went to South Jersey Regional Medical center where they were all treated and released. INSURANCE COVERAGE: Archie was insured by NJM and has a standard PIP with a limitation on lawsuit threshold on his policy. He is the only named insured on the policy as his wife Edith does not drive. Mike and Gloria do not own a car as Mike is still a student. They both live with Archie and Edith. George owns a car that is insured with Allstate. He has no limitation on lawsuit on the policy with 15K in PIP benefits, with health insurance primary. Lionel does not live with his father and does own his own car, but does not have current insurance on the car, as he is rebuilding the engine since it needs to be replaced. The car is still registered in NJ. Maude has a special policy (dollar a day) since she has fallen on hard times and the acting business has not been doing well. She is insured with Praetorian Insurance Company. Ricky Ricardo was walking home from his day job at Pep Boys where he works as an auto mechanic. He is a singer at Eugene s nightclub in the evenings, a local Latin club. He lives with his girlfriend, Lucy, who does own a car that is insured with Geico with a 15k in PIP benefits and a Limitation of Lawsuit threshold. Ricky is listed on the policy as an additional driver only. QUESTIONS PRESENTED: What Tort threshold applies to each person? For tort threshold, the household policies combined with familial relationships will control, unless there is an exception. What PIP benefits are available to each person injured and who is responsible to pay the PIP benefits? Daniel E. Rosner, Esq. Certified Civil Trial

24 This answer is a little more complex and will be explained at the oral presentation. A good resource to find the answers to these questions and much more for anyone who handles these types of cases is: Craig & Pomeroy, New Jersey Auto Insurance Law (GANN, 2012). Here are the answers: 1. Archie: LOL, 250k pip with standard co-pay/ded (NJM) 1 2. Edith: LOL, 250k pip with standard co-pay/ded (NJM) 2 3. Gloria: LOL, 250k pip with standard co-pay/ded (NJM) 3 4. Meathead: No LOL, 250k pip with standard co-pay/ded (NJM) 4 1 Archie: Answer found in NJSA 39:6A-8.1: a. Election of a tort option pursuant to section 8 of P.L. 1972, c. 70 (C. 39:6A-8) shall be in writing and signed by the named insured on the coverage selection form required by section 17 of P.L. 1983, c. 362 (C. 39:6A-23). The form shall state the percentage difference in the premium rates or the dollar savings between the two tort options. The tort option elected shall apply to the named insured and any immediate family member residing in the named insured's household. "Immediate family member" means the spouse of the named insured and any child of the named insured or spouse residing in the named insured's household, who is not a named insured under another automobile insurance policy. 2 Edith: Answer found in NJSA 39:6A-8.1(d): d. The tort option elected by the named insured shall apply to all automobiles owned by the named insured and to any immediate family member who is not a named insured under another automobile insurance policy 3 Gloria: LOL, 250k pip with standard copay/ded(njm) Answer found in NJSA 39:6A-8.1(d), same analysis as Edith. 4 Meathead: Answer found in NJSA 39:6A-8.1(d): The verbal threshold is inapplicable to a person who is eligible for PIP benefits as a permissive user, passenger, or non-immediate family member of an insured who is not required to maintain PIP coverage is for accidents. Since Meathead is not a direct family member of the named insured Archie, then he is not bound by Archie s choice of threshold, but is an eligible passenger in the car entitled to PIP. Daniel E. Rosner, Esq. Certified Civil Trial Attorney

25 5. George: No LOL, Health insurance primary, 15k pip with standard copay/ded, unless no health insurance, then 750 ded. (Allstate) 5 6. Lionel: No LOL, 250k pip with standard co-pay/ded (NJM)(Assuming he can prove not culpably uninsured) Maude: LOL, E/R only PIP, Praetorian 7 8. Ricky: No LOL, 250 PIP with standard co-pay/ded (Uninsured pedestrian pip through PLIGA) 8 5 George: Answer found in NJSA 39:6A-8.1(d): d. The tort option elected by the named insured shall apply to all automobiles owned by the named insured 6 Lionel: NJSA 39:6A-7(b)(1), but in order for Lionel to collect PIP from host vehicle he must show he was not culpably insured. NJM, the host vehicle will cover for PIP as long as Lionel can prove not culpably insured. For Lionel, the benefit preclusion in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-7(b)(1) applies only to vehicles that were "being operated" at the time of the accident. The ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue of exclusion is on the insurer. The PIP claimant must then come forward and show that his automobile was not being operated in or around the time of the accident, based on a conscious determination to prevent such use of the uninsured vehicle. Gibson v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 261 N.J. Super 579 (App. Div. 1993). 7 Maude: Answer found in NJSA 39:6A-3.3(b)(1): " 'Emergency personal injury protection coverage' issued pursuant to this section means and includes only payment of treatment for emergency care in an amount not to exceed $250,000 per person per accident. 'Emergency care' means all medically necessary treatment of a traumatic injury or a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity such that absence of immediate attention could reasonably be expected to result in: death; serious impairment to bodily functions; or serious dysfunction of a bodily organ or part 8 Ricky: Answer found under Pedestrian PIP for uninsured pedestrians in 39: UCJF benefits. When any person qualified to receive payments under the provisions of the "Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund Law" suffers bodily injury or death as a pedestrian for which personal injury protection benefits under the "New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act," P.L.1972, c.70 (C.39:6A-1 et seq.), or when a pedestrian suffers bodily injury as provided by section 35 of P.L.2003, c.89 (C.39:6-86.7) then in such event the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund shall provide [the benefits enumerated in the statute]. Since Ricky is not a named insured on his girlfriend Lucy s policy, he becomes an uninsured pedestrian that does not own a car. Uninsured pedestrians are covered by UCJF/PLIGA pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6-86.1, which is not within the ambit of N.J.S.A. 39: 6A-8. Given the 1990 amendment, it seems clear that such persons are not subject to the verbal threshold. Source: Craig & Pomeroy, New Jersey Auto Insurance Law (GANN, 2012) at Daniel E. Rosner, Esq. Certified Civil Trial Attorney

Automobile Insurance Update 2012 Co-Sponsored by the Automobile Reparations Committee

Automobile Insurance Update 2012 Co-Sponsored by the Automobile Reparations Committee Civil Litigation Track Automobile Insurance Update 2012 Co-Sponsored by the Automobile Reparations Committee A review of the cases and statutes over the last year that deal with automobile insurance issues

More information

Defenses to Driving Without Insurance. 1. What are the penalties for driving without insurance?

Defenses to Driving Without Insurance. 1. What are the penalties for driving without insurance? Defenses to Driving Without Insurance 1. What are the penalties for driving without insurance? New Jersey law requires all drivers to have insurance on their motor vehicles. A driver must have insurance

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 10-4345. DOROTHY AVICOLLI, Appellant

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 10-4345. DOROTHY AVICOLLI, Appellant NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 10-4345 DOROTHY AVICOLLI, Appellant v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a/k/a GEICO; ANGELO CARTER; CHARLES CARTER On Appeal

More information

Prepared by: Barton L. Slavin, Esq. 212-233-1010 Web site: www.nycattorneys.com

Prepared by: Barton L. Slavin, Esq. 212-233-1010 Web site: www.nycattorneys.com Prepared by: Barton L. Slavin, Esq. 1. Identify Insurance Company - On the Police Report there is a three digit code that identifies the insurance company for a vehicle. The following link will take you

More information

FLOYD-TUNNELL V. SHELTER MUT. INS. CO.: WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AND UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE

FLOYD-TUNNELL V. SHELTER MUT. INS. CO.: WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AND UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE FLOYD-TUNNELL V. SHELTER MUT. INS. CO.: WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AND UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE INTRODUCTION Rebecca Floyd-Tunnell and Doris Floyd ( Appellants ) filed suit against Shelter Mutual Insurance

More information

OREGON LAW AT-A-GLANCE

OREGON LAW AT-A-GLANCE 1. ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK: This doctrine was abolished in Oregon. ORS 31.620(2). But see Comparative Negligence below. 2. COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE: The Court may deduct from a damages award certain collateral

More information

Reed Armstrong Quarterly

Reed Armstrong Quarterly Reed Armstrong Quarterly January 2009 http://www.reedarmstrong.com/default.asp Contributors: William B. Starnes II Tori L. Cox IN THIS ISSUE: Joint and Several Liability The Fault of Settled Tortfeasors

More information

UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE - HISTORY

UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE - HISTORY 59202 Prepared by the North Dakota Legislative Council staff for the Transportation Committee March 2004 UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE - HISTORY This memorandum reviews the law on uninsured

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. FREDERICK VOSS, v. Plaintiff-Respondent, KRISTOFFE J. TRANQUILINO, JAIME A.

More information

M E M O R A N D U M. Request for Change to Special Automobile Insurance Policy Memorandum 01/06/14 Page 1

M E M O R A N D U M. Request for Change to Special Automobile Insurance Policy Memorandum 01/06/14 Page 1 To: Commission From: Laura C. Tharney Re: Request from Member of Public to Change N.J.S. 39:6A-3.3 special automobile insurance policy Date: January 6, 2014 M E M O R A N D U M I received a copy of a request

More information

uninsured/underinsured motorist ( UM or UIM respectively) coverage of $100,000 per claimant. Under the Atkinson policy,

uninsured/underinsured motorist ( UM or UIM respectively) coverage of $100,000 per claimant. Under the Atkinson policy, PRESENT: All the Justices LENNA JO DYER OPINION BY v. Record No. 031532 JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE APRIL 23, 2004 DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Herbert C. Gill,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED August 20, 2015 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, v No. 320710 Oakland Circuit Court YVONNE J. HARE,

More information

S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter

S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter 295 Ga. 487 FINAL COPY S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. HINES, Presiding Justice. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter v. Progressive Mountain Ins.,

More information

A SUMMARY OF COLORADO UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW April 2004

A SUMMARY OF COLORADO UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW April 2004 A SUMMARY OF COLORADO UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW April 2004 By: Mark Kane and HayDen Kane By reviewing this document the reader acknowledges that he or she has reviewed, understands

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Safe Auto Insurance Company, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2247 C.D. 2004 : Argued: February 28, 2005 School District of Philadelphia, : Pride Coleman and Helena Coleman

More information

With regard to the coverage issue 1 : With regard to the stacking issue 2 :

With regard to the coverage issue 1 : With regard to the stacking issue 2 : 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1140c Insurance -- Uninsured motorist -- Coverage -- Stacking -- Action against UM insurer by insured policyholder who was injured in single-car accident while riding as passenger in

More information

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. JANENE RUSSO and GARY RUSSO, v. Plaintiffs-Respondents, CHUBB INSURANCE COMPANY

More information

2009 WI APP 51 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION

2009 WI APP 51 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2009 WI APP 51 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2008AP1036 Complete Title of Case: JOHN A. MITTNACHT AND THERESA MITTNACHT, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, V. ST. PAUL FIRE AND CASUALTY

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Jay Ebersole, Administrator of the : Estate of Stephanie Jo Ebersole, : Deceased : : v. : No. 1732 C.D. 2014 : Argued: February 9, 2015 Southeastern Pennsylvania

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Karen Davis, No. 216 C.D. 2015 Petitioner Argued November 16, 2015 v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board (PA Social Services Union and Netherlands Insurance Company),

More information

Cardelli Lanfear P.C.

Cardelli Lanfear P.C. Michigan Prepared by Cardelli Lanfear P.C. 322 West Lincoln Royal Oak, MI 48067 Tel: 248.850.2179 Fax: 248.544.1191 1. Introduction History of Tort Reform in Michigan Michigan was one of the first states

More information

Table of Contents. 1. What should I do when the other driver s insurance company contacts me?... 1

Table of Contents. 1. What should I do when the other driver s insurance company contacts me?... 1 Table of Contents 1. What should I do when the other driver s insurance company contacts me?... 1 2. Who should be paying my medical bills from a car accident injury?... 2 3. What should I do after the

More information

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE GERALD J. BAMBERGER, et al., ) No. ED92319 ) Appellants, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court vs. ) of St. Louis County ) 08SL-CC01435 CHARLES

More information

HARRIS v AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION. Docket No. 144579. Argued March 6, 2013 (Calendar No. 7). Decided July 29, 2013.

HARRIS v AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION. Docket No. 144579. Argued March 6, 2013 (Calendar No. 7). Decided July 29, 2013. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Syllabus This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Chief

More information

2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 05/03/12. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ELI NEIMAN, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and Defendant,

More information

[Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.]

[Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.] [Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.] ROGERS v. CITY OF DAYTON ET AL., APPELLEES; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., APPELLANT. [Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d

More information

Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Resinski

Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Resinski MONTGOMERY COUNTY LAW REPORTER 140-301 2003 MBA 30 Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Resinski [140 M.C.L.R., Part II Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Resinski APPEAL and ERROR Motion for Summary

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES HENDRICK, v Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED May 24, 2007 No. 275318 Montcalm Circuit Court LC No. 06-007975-NI

More information

Florida No-Fault Auto Insurance: A Historical Primer

Florida No-Fault Auto Insurance: A Historical Primer Florida No-Fault Auto Insurance: A Historical Primer Auto Insurance Fraud Strike Force Board Meeting Tallahassee, FL January 24, 2013 Lynne McChristian, Florida Representative Insurance Information Institute

More information

Title 28-A: LIQUORS. Chapter 100: MAINE LIQUOR LIABILITY ACT. Table of Contents Part 8. LIQUOR LIABILITY...

Title 28-A: LIQUORS. Chapter 100: MAINE LIQUOR LIABILITY ACT. Table of Contents Part 8. LIQUOR LIABILITY... Title 28-A: LIQUORS Chapter 100: MAINE LIQUOR LIABILITY ACT Table of Contents Part 8. LIQUOR LIABILITY... Section 2501. SHORT TITLE... 3 Section 2502. PURPOSES... 3 Section 2503. DEFINITIONS... 3 Section

More information

Table of Contents. Selected Iowa Wrongful Death Laws and Rules

Table of Contents. Selected Iowa Wrongful Death Laws and Rules Table of Contents 1. What is a wrongful death claim?... 2 2. Who may recover compensation for a wrongful death?... 3 3. How is a wrongful death claim commenced?... 4 4. What types of losses are compensated

More information

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2015 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and

More information

Changing Tort Reform In Kentucky Christel Siglock. By changing its current No-Fault and Tort law options, Kentucky could; 1) Reduce the

Changing Tort Reform In Kentucky Christel Siglock. By changing its current No-Fault and Tort law options, Kentucky could; 1) Reduce the Changing Tort Reform In Kentucky Christel Siglock By changing its current No-Fault and Tort law options, Kentucky could; 1) Reduce the number of lawsuits filed, 2) Thus reducing insurance company payouts

More information

since recovered the policy limits of both the automobile driver s insurance, and the underinsured motorist benefits covering

since recovered the policy limits of both the automobile driver s insurance, and the underinsured motorist benefits covering IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION OF AMERICA, AN ILLINOIS : STOCK CORPORATION : Plaintiff, : : v. : : KEVIN BEAUCHAMP

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Docket No. 107472. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. KEY CARTAGE, INC., et al. Appellees. Opinion filed October 29, 2009. JUSTICE BURKE delivered

More information

Present: Williams, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, Flanders, and Goldberg, JJ. O P I N I O N

Present: Williams, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, Flanders, and Goldberg, JJ. O P I N I O N Supreme Court No. 2000-205-Appeal. (PC 99-4922) John J. McVicker et al. v. Travelers Insurance Company et al. : : : Present: Williams, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, Flanders, and Goldberg, JJ. O P I N I O

More information

PIP Coverage and Disputes

PIP Coverage and Disputes PIP Coverage and Disputes September 23, 2011 Oregon State Bar CLE Thomas D Amore Billy Sime D Amore Law Group, P.C. Parks Bauer Sime Winkler & Fernety 4230 Galewood Street, Suite 200 570 Liberty Street

More information

No-Fault Automobile Insurance

No-Fault Automobile Insurance No-Fault Automobile Insurance By Margaret C. Jasper, Esq. Prior to the enactment of state no-fault insurance legislation, recovery for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident were subject

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. KWABENA WADEER and OFELIA WADEER, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II JENNIFER HELGESON and ANDREW HELGESON, Appellants, No. 41371-0-II v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION VIKING INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN a foreign corporation,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LINDA Y. HAMMEL Yarling & Robinson Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: DAVID J. LANGE Stewart & Stewart Carmel, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

More information

Motorcyclists and the Michigan No-Fault Law

Motorcyclists and the Michigan No-Fault Law Motorcyclists and the Michigan No-Fault Law (2nd Edition) Important Questions and Answers By George T. Sinas SINAS, DRAMIS, BRAKE, BOUGHTON & MCINTYRE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3380 Pine Tree Road, Lansing,

More information

PART III MEDICAID LIEN RECOVERY. 1) From the estate of the Medicaid recipient.

PART III MEDICAID LIEN RECOVERY. 1) From the estate of the Medicaid recipient. PART III MEDICAID LIEN RECOVERY 1. Basics: 1) For Medicaid benefits that are correctly paid, there are two major instances in which Medicaid may seek to impose and recover liens: 1) From the estate of

More information

[The Maryland statutory provisions regulating motor vehicle insurance, Maryland Code

[The Maryland statutory provisions regulating motor vehicle insurance, Maryland Code No. 122, September Term, 1999 Barry W. Lewis v. Allstate Insurance Company [The Maryland statutory provisions regulating motor vehicle insurance, Maryland Code (1997, 2001 Supp.), 19-501 et seq. of the

More information

The key conclusions of this report are:

The key conclusions of this report are: 9. Typical auto insurance benefits in both no fault and traditional States fall short of the needs of catastrophically injured victims. EXECUTIVE OFFICE INTER-COMMUNICATION From: KENNETH D. MERIN, DIRECTOR

More information

PREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU. LegalFormsForTexas.Com

PREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU. LegalFormsForTexas.Com Form: Plaintiff's original petition-wrongful Death [Name], PLAINTIFF vs. [Name], DEFENDANT [ IN THE [Type of Court] COURT [Court number] PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 1. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1.1 Plaintiff

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC02-2659 CYNTHIA CLEFF NORMAN, Petitioner, vs. TERRI LAMARRIA FARROW, Respondent. [June 24, 2004] WELLS, J. We have for review Norman v. Farrow, 832 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-148 (HL) ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-148 (HL) ORDER Case 7:12-cv-00148-HL Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 11 CHRISTY LYNN WATFORD, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

More information

PREVIEW. 1. The following form may be used to file a personal injury lawsuit.

PREVIEW. 1. The following form may be used to file a personal injury lawsuit. Information or instructions: Plaintiff's original petition-auto accident 1. The following form may be used to file a personal injury lawsuit. 2. It assumes several plaintiffs were rear-ended by an employee

More information

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, * Hassell, Keenan and Koontz, JJ.

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, * Hassell, Keenan and Koontz, JJ. Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, * Hassell, Keenan and Koontz, JJ. Lacy, MICHAEL F. HAISLIP OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No. 962214 September 12, 1997 SOUTHERN HERITAGE

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: JANUARY 22, 2010; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000566-MR TOM COX APPELLANT APPEAL FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JOHN KNOX MILLS,

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION TINA L. TALMADGE, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION CONNIE S. BURN and ALVAN A. BURN, and Defendants, THE HARTFORD, Defendant/Intervenor- Respondent.

More information

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES By Craig R. White SKEDSVOLD & WHITE, LLC. 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway Suite 710 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 (770)

More information

Case 1:13-cv-00796-RPM Document 23 Filed 02/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00796-RPM Document 23 Filed 02/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Case 1:13-cv-00796-RPM Document 23 Filed 02/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No. 13-cv-00796-RPM MICHAEL DAY KEENEY, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior

More information

Supreme Court of Missouri en banc

Supreme Court of Missouri en banc Supreme Court of Missouri en banc MARK KARSCIG, Appellant, v. No. SC90080 JENNIFER M. MCCONVILLE, Appellant, and AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PETTIS

More information

Recent Case Update. Insurance Stacking UIM Westra v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Court of Appeals, 13 AP 48, June 18, 2013)

Recent Case Update. Insurance Stacking UIM Westra v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Court of Appeals, 13 AP 48, June 18, 2013) Recent Case Update VOL. XXII, NO. 2 Summer 2013 Insurance Summary Judgment Stacking UIM Saladin v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company (Court of Appeals, 12 AP 1649, June 4, 2013) On August 26, 2010,

More information

SUMMARY OF PENNSYLVANIA AUTO INSURANCE LAW

SUMMARY OF PENNSYLVANIA AUTO INSURANCE LAW SUMMARY OF PENNSYLVANIA AUTO INSURANCE LAW The laws relating to automobile insurance coverage are compiled in 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1701 et seq., known as the Act 6 Amendments to the PA Motor Vehicle Financial

More information

Illinois Supreme Court Requires Plaintiff to Apportion Settlements Among Successive Tortfeasors

Illinois Supreme Court Requires Plaintiff to Apportion Settlements Among Successive Tortfeasors Illinois Supreme Court Requires Plaintiff to Apportion Settlements Among Successive Tortfeasors By: Joseph B. Carini III & Catherine H. Reiter Cole, Grasso, Fencl & Skinner, Ltd. Illinois Courts have long

More information

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with

More information

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS REL: 12/09/2005 STATE FARM v. BROWN Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BRYAN F. LaCHAPELL, Individually and as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF KARIN MARIE LaCHAPELL, UNPUBLISHED May 24, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 326003 Marquette

More information

RENDERED: JUNE 14, 2002; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO. 2001-CA-001138-MR

RENDERED: JUNE 14, 2002; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO. 2001-CA-001138-MR RENDERED: JUNE 14, 2002; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth Of K entucky Court Of A ppeals NO. 2001-CA-001138-MR ATLANTA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT

More information

VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION

VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION CHAPTER 585 An Act to amend and reenact 38.2-2206 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 7 of Chapter 3 of Title 8.01 a

More information

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. Paul S. Bryan, Judge.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. Paul S. Bryan, Judge. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ESTATE OF TIMOTHY HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 23, 2007 v No. 259987 Oakland Circuit Court CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 2000-024949-CZ and Defendant/Cross-Defendant-

More information

1. New Law Gives Car Accident Victims Priority over Car Insurance Company Subrogation Claims.

1. New Law Gives Car Accident Victims Priority over Car Insurance Company Subrogation Claims. February 9, 2011 E361 In This Issue: 1. New Law Gives Car Accident Victims Priority over Car Insurance Company Subrogation Claims. 2. Back to Running after 5 Months of Rehab. 3. Prior Refusal to Breath

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES PERKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION July 18, 2013 9:00 a.m. v No. 310473 Grand Traverse Circuit Court AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 2011-028699-NF

More information

Frank E. Jenkins, III JENKINS & BOWEN, P.C. 15 South Public Square Cartersville, Georgia 30120 (770) 387-1373

Frank E. Jenkins, III JENKINS & BOWEN, P.C. 15 South Public Square Cartersville, Georgia 30120 (770) 387-1373 Frank E. Jenkins, III JENKINS & BOWEN, P.C. 15 South Public Square Cartersville, Georgia 30120 (770) 387-1373 Wallace Miller, III WALLACE MILLER, III, LLC 509 Forest Hills Road Macon, Georgia 30209 (478)

More information

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 2496. September Term, 2014 MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 2496. September Term, 2014 MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2496 September Term, 2014 MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Berger, Reed, Rodowsky, Lawrence

More information

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 HOUSE DRH11149-TG-5 (12/01) Short Title: Tort Reform Act of 2011. (Public)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 HOUSE DRH11149-TG-5 (12/01) Short Title: Tort Reform Act of 2011. (Public) H GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION HOUSE DRH-TG- (/01) D Short Title: Tort Reform Act of. (Public) Sponsors: Referred to: Representatives Blust and Daughtry (Primary Sponsors). 1 A BILL TO BE

More information

COMMERCE INSURANCE CO., INC. vs. VITTORIO GENTILE & others. 1. September 16, 2015.

COMMERCE INSURANCE CO., INC. vs. VITTORIO GENTILE & others. 1. September 16, 2015. NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PL EAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PL EAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PL EAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PA FRED LILLEY & KAREN LILLEY, : Plaintiffs : : v. : NO.: 98-00,805 : BLUE CROSS OF NORTHEASTERN : PENNSYLVANIA : OPINION and ORDER In this declaratory

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, DEFENDANT.

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, DEFENDANT. 2000 WI App 171 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 99-0776 Complete Title of Case: RONNIE PROPHET AND BADON PROPHET, V. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY, INC.,

More information

-vs- No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent,

-vs- No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1990 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, -vs- Plaintiff and Respondent, THE ESTATE OF GARY NELSON BRAUN, Deceased, and CHESTER V. BRAUN,

More information

Video Course Evaluation Form. Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of Course You Just Watched

Video Course Evaluation Form. Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of Course You Just Watched Garden State CLE 21 Winthrop Road Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 (609) 895-0046 fax- 609-895-1899 Atty2starz@aol.com Video Course Evaluation Form Attorney Name Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of

More information

2015 IL App (2d) 141168-U No. 2-14-1168 Order filed October 15, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT

2015 IL App (2d) 141168-U No. 2-14-1168 Order filed October 15, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT No. 2-14-1168 Order filed October 15, 2015 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule

More information

How Much Protection Does the Oregon Tort Claims Act Really Provide?

How Much Protection Does the Oregon Tort Claims Act Really Provide? How Much Protection Does the Oregon Tort Claims Act Really Provide? Session Materials by Jens Schmidt Harrang Long Gary Rudnick P.C. Oregon Public Risk Manager s Fall Conference October 3, 2013 Salishan

More information

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO FRANCIS GRAHAM, ) No. ED97421 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Steven H. Goldman STATE

More information

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER BRIEF JAMES H. WHITE, JR. STAATS, WHITE & CLARKE. Florida Bar No.: 309303. 229 McKenzie Avenue. Panama City, Florida 32401

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER BRIEF JAMES H. WHITE, JR. STAATS, WHITE & CLARKE. Florida Bar No.: 309303. 229 McKenzie Avenue. Panama City, Florida 32401 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA FILED THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY and THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. Petitioners, CASE NO.: 85,337 BRETT ALLAN WARREN, Personal DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL Representative

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 08-1412. In re: GEORGE W. COLE, Debtor. CITY OF WILKES-BARRE, Appellant v.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 08-1412. In re: GEORGE W. COLE, Debtor. CITY OF WILKES-BARRE, Appellant v. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NOT PRECEDENTIAL No. 08-1412 In re: GEORGE W. COLE, Debtor CITY OF WILKES-BARRE, Appellant v. ROBERT P. SHEILS, Jr., Trustee On Appeal from the United

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID L. TAYLOR THOMAS R. HALEY III Jennings Taylor Wheeler & Haley P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DOUGLAS D. SMALL Foley & Small South Bend, Indiana

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KIRK ALFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2006 v No. 262441 Wayne Circuit Court ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 03-338615-CK and Defendant-Appellee/Cross-

More information

INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS OF LOUISIANA 9818 BLUEBONNET BOULEVARD BATON ROUGE, LA 70810 TEL: 225/819-8007 FAX: 225/819-8027 www.iial.

INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS OF LOUISIANA 9818 BLUEBONNET BOULEVARD BATON ROUGE, LA 70810 TEL: 225/819-8007 FAX: 225/819-8027 www.iial. INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS OF LOUISIANA 9818 BLUEBONNET BOULEVARD BATON ROUGE, LA 70810 TEL: 225/819-8007 FAX: 225/819-8027 www.iial.com TA 206 Date: 5/21/02 SUBJECT: LOUISIANA LIQUOR LIABILITY LAW BACKGROUND:

More information

: : : : v. : : HELEN S. ZIATYK, : Appellant : NO. 302 EDA 2001

: : : : v. : : HELEN S. ZIATYK, : Appellant : NO. 302 EDA 2001 2002 PA Super 50 PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HELEN S. ZIATYK, Appellant NO. 302 EDA 2001 Appeal from the Order entered March 20,

More information

Indiana Supreme Court

Indiana Supreme Court ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS George M. Plews Sean M. Hirschten Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE THE INSURANCE INSTITUTE OF INDIANA, INC. John C. Trimble Richard

More information

Recent Case Update. www.pjmlaw.com 1. VOL. XXIII, NO. 2 Summer 2014

Recent Case Update. www.pjmlaw.com 1. VOL. XXIII, NO. 2 Summer 2014 Recent Case Update VOL. XXIII, NO. 2 Summer 2014 Legal Malpractice Attorney-Client Relationship Summary Judgment Williamson v. Schweiger (Court of Appeals, 13 AP 1777, July 1, 2014) (unpublished) Plaintiff

More information

Schwebel. In 1974, Jim founded what is now Minnesota s largest law practice specializing in personal injury. James R. Schwebel

Schwebel. In 1974, Jim founded what is now Minnesota s largest law practice specializing in personal injury. James R. Schwebel James R. Schwebel 5120 IDS Center 80 South 8th St. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2246 Phone 612.344.0306 Fax 612.333.6311 jschwebel@schwebel.com www.schwebel.com In 1974, Jim founded what is now Minnesota

More information

RENDERED: DECEMBER 20, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO. 2001-CA-002498-MR OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** **

RENDERED: DECEMBER 20, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO. 2001-CA-002498-MR OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** RENDERED: DECEMBER 20, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth Of K entucky Court Of A ppeals NO. 2001-CA-002498-MR ALICE STANIFORD APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JOHNSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DANIEL

More information

RIGHT Lawyers. Stacy Rocheleau, Esq. Gary Thompson, Esq.

RIGHT Lawyers. Stacy Rocheleau, Esq. Gary Thompson, Esq. rightlawyers.com RIGHT Lawyers Right Lawyers has successfully represented numerous clients in the areas of car accidents, work injuries, and slip and falls. The goal of this guide is to provide you answers

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR Filed 8/12/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR PROGRESSIVE CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, B242429

More information

Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel P.O. Box 7288, Springfield, IL 62791 IDC Quarterly Vol. 12, No. 1 (12.1.67) FEATURE ARTICLE

Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel P.O. Box 7288, Springfield, IL 62791 IDC Quarterly Vol. 12, No. 1 (12.1.67) FEATURE ARTICLE FEATURE ARTICLE Nursing Home Care Act Cases Abate at Death By: Edward M. Wagner Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Urbana A Statutory Cause of Action Attempted for a Violation of the Illinois Nursing Home

More information

MASSACHUSETTS INSURANCE LAW UPDATE

MASSACHUSETTS INSURANCE LAW UPDATE THE MCCORMACK FIRM, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW MASSACHUSETTS INSURANCE LAW UPDATE Plaintiff Awarded in Excess of $1 Million For Insurer s Failure to Settle Automobile Liability Claim Within $20,000 Policy Limits

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. Ludwig. J. July 9, 2010

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. Ludwig. J. July 9, 2010 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN M. KELLY : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : No. 09-1641 NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE : INSURANCE COMPANY : MEMORANDUM Ludwig. J.

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Acuity v. Decker, 2015 IL App (2d) 150192 Appellate Court Caption ACUITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONALD DECKER, Defendant- Appellee (Groot Industries, Inc., Defendant).

More information

CHAPTER 2 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NO-FAULT INSURANCE AND DRIVER BEHAVIOR

CHAPTER 2 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NO-FAULT INSURANCE AND DRIVER BEHAVIOR -5- CHAPTER 2 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NO-FAULT INSURANCE AND DRIVER BEHAVIOR Under a traditional tort system, at-fault drivers are liable for the economic and noneconomic damages they inflict on third

More information

Buyer Beware. Things To Know About Buying Car Insurance In Washington State. By Christopher M. Davis, Attorney at Law

Buyer Beware. Things To Know About Buying Car Insurance In Washington State. By Christopher M. Davis, Attorney at Law Buyer Beware Things To Know About Buying Car Insurance In Washington State By Christopher M. Davis, Attorney at Law Davis Law Group, P.S. 2101 Fourth Avenue Suite 630 Seattle, WA 98121 206-727-4000 Davis

More information

S14G1878. TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CASTELLANOS. In this dispute over recovery under an uninsured motorist (UM) insurance

S14G1878. TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CASTELLANOS. In this dispute over recovery under an uninsured motorist (UM) insurance 297 Ga. 174 FINAL COPY S14G1878. TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CASTELLANOS. HUNSTEIN, Justice. In this dispute over recovery under an uninsured motorist (UM) insurance policy, we granted

More information

St. Paul argues that Mrs. Hugh is not entitled to UM/UIM coverage under her

St. Paul argues that Mrs. Hugh is not entitled to UM/UIM coverage under her The Virginia State Bar requires that all lawyers set forth the following regarding case results: CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT

More information