 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Joyner v. Nissan 1012/19/1991
MARTIN, J.S.C.
The Court is called upon to interpret the scope of N.J.S.A. 39:6-70(c). Plaintiff, Deborah Joyner, instituted this personal injury action following an accident which occurred on June 14,
1988 in the municipality of Passaic. Plaintiff was a passenger in a 1987 Nissan operated by defendant Eddie Green. Green lost control of the vehicle and struck a building thereby causing plaintiff's injuries. The 1987 Nissan was stolen at the time of the accident. It was owned by defendant Nissan 10, Inc., and utilized by defendant, Richard Bulen as agent, servant and/or employee of Nissan. The June 13, 1988 theft was reported to the East Orange Police Dept. by defendant Bulen on June 14, 1988. For purposes of this motion, it is stipulated that Ms. Joyner did not know the vehicle was stolen.
The insurance company for the Bulen vehicle denied personal injury protection and liability insurance coverage payment benefits to the plaintiff. Plaintiff then sought relief from the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund. (hereafter UCJF).
The Commission of Insurance and the UCJF Board now move for summary judgment alleging plaintiff's ineligibility for benefits because she was an occupant in a stolen vehicle at the time of the accident.
Discussion
The issue is whether an otherwise uninsured passenger in a stolen vehicle, having no knowledge of the vehicle's stolen status, may receive an award from the UCJF for injuries sustained in an automobile accident.
There are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. The issue to be decided is purely legal and may be treated summarily. Judson v. People's Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 110 A.2d 24 (1954).
The UCJF was created on April 1, 1953. N.J.S.A. 39:6-60. "The legislative purpose in establishing the Fund was to provide a measure of relief to persons who sustain losses or injuries inflicted by financially irresponsible or unidentified operators of motor vehicles where such persons would otherwise be remediless." Hartford Ins. Co. v. Allstate, 127 N.J. Super. 460, 465, 317 A.2d 760 (App.Div. 1974). Under the UCJF
law, only a qualified person as defined under the statute may seek compensation from the fund.
Defendants/movants argue that plaintiff is not a qualified person to collect benefits under the UCJF law because occupying a stolen vehicle is sufficient to bar recovery. N.J.S.A. 39:6-70(c) Plaintiff disagrees and urges that such an argument defeats the primary purpose of the statute.
A review of the legislative history upon enacting and amending N.J.S.A. 39:6-70(c) was not telling as to the intent of the drafters. The Appellate Division offers this guidance:
We are mindful that the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund is remedial legislation enacted out of concern over the economic hardship imposed upon persons sustaining injuries caused by financially irresponsible and uninsured motorists where there is no other source of compensation . Dixon v. Gassert, 26 N.J. 1, 5 [138 A.2d 14] (1958). However, "while liberality of construction of remedial legislation is desirable, we cannot ignore the plain meaning of the language employed by the Legislature", Wormack v. Howard, 33 N.J. 139, 142 [162 A.2d 846] (1960), and note the statute was not intended to make every claimant whole. Id. at 143 [162 A.2d 846]. See, Douglas v. Harris,
Page 1 2 New Jersey Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|