New Jersey Car Accident Law Blog : New Jersey Personal Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Richard Schnoll : Cohn Lifland Pearlman & Knopf Law Firm : NJ Auto Accidents, Car Crashes

New Jersey has a law that bars an injured person from suing for pain and suffering arising from a car accident  if that person does not have the requisite insurance on his/her vehicle at the time of the accident. What happens if the injured person is not the operator of the vehicle but is merely a passenger in their own vehicle? Do they have a right to sue? In a recent case, the NJ Supreme Court said NO. In the case of Perrelli v. Pastorelle,  Denise Perrelli was a passenger in her vehicle which was being driven by a friend. They collided with a vehicle operated by Paul Pastorelle. Perrelli sued Pastorelle claiming that his negligence caused the accident. The defendant moved for Summary Judgment based upon the NJ law.  Perrelli countered that the statute 's language requires her to be the operator of the vehicle and since she was not, she was entitled to bring suit. The trial court denied the summary judgment motion. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme court, which reversed the lower court holding that the language of the statute cannot be construed so literally because it would allow an uninsured person to violate the law and not suffer its consequences.  Therefore, whether you are the owner/operator or passenger in the car, you are barred from suing if the car is uninsured!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Under New Jersey law, an uninsured owner/operator of a car who is involved in an accident which results in injuries to the operator is precluded from recovering damages for both economic and non-economic (pain and suffering) loss.  See N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(a).

An interesting but previously unanswered question is whether the survivors of an uninsured driver who is killed in a crash can bring an action under the Wrongful Death Act notwithstanding the fact that the operator was uninsured.  This issue will be decided shortly by the NJ Supreme Court in the case of Aronberg v. Tolbert.

Lawrence Aronberg was killed in a crash on the NJ Turnpike.  His automobile insurance carrier had cancelled his policy a few weeks before the crash due to non-payment of premiums.

His mother brought  Wrongful death Act and Survivor's Act claims. The trial court dismissed the Survivor's Act claim but upheld the Wrongful Death Act claim.  The defendant appealed.  The Appellate Division affirmed in a 2-1 decision, holding that there is nothing in the language of the statute that indicates that the "Legislature intended to target innocent family members without any culpability for the lack of insurance". The dissenting judge wrote that he believed that the Legislature intended to prohibit these types of lawsuits.

Now the NJ Supreme Court will have the final say.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Simmons v. Lynch, plaintiff, Lois Simmons, was involved in a car accident while driving a vehicle owned and insured by her employer. At the time of the accident, plaintiff owned a car, which was uninsured. 

Plaintiff received treatment for her injuries and sued the defendant and the defendant’s insurance company. During her suit, plaintiff failed to provide a doctor’s report “establishing that she suffered a permanent injury causally related to the accident” and a physician’s certification, as required under New Jersey law. 

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that plaintiff had failed to meet the permanent injury verbal threshold requirements set forth in the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act (AICRA). Plaintiff argued that she was not subject to AICRA, since she had not been driving her own uninsured car at the time of the accident. In the alternative, she argued, that she had suffered permanent injuries. 

The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that plaintiff was subject to AICRA “because she was required to maintain personal injury protection (PIP) for her vehicle, and was unlawfully uninsured at the time of the accident.” The trial court also found that plaintiff had failed to establish she had suffered a permanent injury. 

Plaintiff appealed and the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Appellate Division found that plaintiff was subject to AICRA, “because she was the owner of an automobile to which PIP coverage applies, was required to maintain PIP coverage, and was an ‘unlawfully uninsured person.’” Consequently, AICRA’s verbal threshold test applied to plaintiff. Because plaintiff failed to meet the verbal threshold test by not providing evidence which established that she had sustained a permanent injury, defendants were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. 

Lesson learned: You own a car? Make sure it’s insured, even if you’re driving another person’s insured vehicle!               

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link