New Jersey Car Accident Law Blog

New Jersey's Initial Permission Rule

ras@njlawfirm.com (Richard Schnoll, Esq.) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:20:40 -0500

Over the next few weeks, I will be discussing an interesting aspect of New Jersey insurance coverage called the intial permission rule.

Scenario 1 - Husband loans his wife’s car to next door neighbor so that neighbor can visit her ill mother. After a short visit with her mother, neighbor drives to a tavern in search of her sister. She had a few drinks at the tavern and then drove to another bar. She went back and forth between the two establishments over several hours before heading home. On the way home, she is involved in a collision with another car. Insurance carrier denies coverage stating that the neighbor used the vehicle outside the scope of the permission granted.

New Jersey follows the “initial permission” rule in determining coverage issues under these circumstances. The rule, adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Matits v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 33 N.J. 488, 497 (1960) (scenario 1) provides that “if a person is given permission to use a motor vehicle in the first instance, any subsequent use short of theft or the like while it remains in his possession, though not within the contemplation of the parties, is a permissive use within the terms of a standard omnibus clause in an automobile liability insurance policy.” Therefore, the carrier was required to provide liability coverage for the vehicle.

To be continued ...

MORE PROM SEASON FOLLIES

ras@njlawfirm.com (Richard Schnoll, Esq.) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:23:10 -0500

In my last posting, I discussed some of the issues facing parents and their children resulting from underage drinking as prom season appoached.

Unfortunately, the message still needs to get out there. An article on the 1010 WINS website last Friday reported on the arrest of approximately 50 students from Morristown H.S. for underage drinking on a bus returning from a prom in NYC. Additionally, 5 parents were also charged with allowing juveniles to drink. You can read the full story here http://www.1010wins.com/pages/4591425.php.

I'm sure that this is just one of many incidents that have and will occur in NJ and around the country as prom season wraps up.

Prom Season - Parents Beware

ras@njlawfirm.com (Richard Schnoll, Esq.) — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:15:44 -0500

Another prom season is here. For parents, as well as their children, proms and other school celebrations pose potentially significant legal problems both civilly and criminally. The NJ Code of Criminal Justice section 2C:33-17(a) provides that "anyone who purposely or knowingly offers or serves or makes available an alcoholic beverage to a person under the legal age for consuming alcoholic beverages or entices or encourages that person to drink an alcoholic beverage is a disorderly person" For those of you unaware, the legal drinking age in NJ is 21. Disorderly persons offenses are punishable by up to 6 months in jail and/or a fine of $1,000.

The law is not limited to those over the age of 21. For example, if your adult child is under age 21 and serves alcohol in your house to his/her friends under age 21, he /she can be convicted under the statute. Additionally, another section of the same law makes it a disorderly person offense to permit your house or office to be used as a location where alcohol will be served or made available to underage drinkers.

In 2006, a NJ couple were convicted under this statute for hosting a prom party for their daughter, knowing that alcoholic beverages would be available to persons under 21. Their defense that they preferred to have the kids drink at their house rather than outside fell on deaf ears.

Lastly, parents should be aware that they face potentially large civil liability to third parties as social hosts if they provide alcoholic beverages to a visibly intoxicated underage drinker who then causes injuries to others through the use of a motor vehicle. In fact, recent court decisions have held that parents and other social hosts can be liable to the underage drinker himself for injuries he sustains in a motor vehicle accident caused by the intoxiaction.

The substance of this post is adapted from an article I wrote that was published in The Community News on February 28, 2007.

What is New Jersey's Tort Threshold?

ras@njlawfirm.com (Richard Schnoll, Esq.) — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:32:17 -0500

In an attempt to control ever increasing automobile insurance premiums, the NJ Legislature has passed a series of so-called tort reform measures over the years. The most recent, the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act (AICRA) was passed in 1998. Amongst many things, it enable purchasers of automobile insurance policies to choose either the Threshold or No Threshold option.

The Threshold option limits your right to sue for pain and suffering in exchange for a reduced premium. Consumers who choose the Threshold option agree that they and their spouses and children in the household will generally not be able to sue for pain and suffering arsing from a motor vehicle accident unless they suffer an injury in one of six categories: Death; Dismemberment: Loss of a fetus; Significant disfigurement or scarring; Displaced fractures; a permanent injury - defined as an injury that has not healed to function normally and will not heal to function normally with further medical treatment.

In most circumstances, if you do not suffer an injury in one of those categories, you will not be able to recover for you pain and suffering although you will generally receive PIP benefits to pay for your medical expenses and some loss of earnings. Of particular note is the fracture category. A simple fracture will not qualify UNLESS you can prove by competent medical evidence that the fracture produces a permanent injury, a relatively high bar for many simple fractures.

As with all things legal, there are exceptions to this rule. For instance, if you involved in an accident with a commercial vehicle which is not required to carry PIP coverage, the threshold does not apply to you.

Property damage caused by stolen vehicle

ras@njlawfirm.com (Richard Schnoll, Esq.) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:49:37 -0500

In follow up to my last post, I was reading today on NorthJersey.com about a police chase of a stolen vehicle. Near the end of the chase, the stolen car smashed into a parked vehicle.

What would you do if it was your parked car? Who would pay to fix it? I think it highly unlikely that the thief would offer to pay for the damage. The insurance carrier for the stolen car can disclaim coverage because the vehicle was stolen. However, you can look to your own auto insurance policy for your Uninsured Motorist Property damage coverage. Depending on how much coverage you purchased, you may be able to have your vehicle fixed without any out of pocket loss to you.

What is UIM and why do I need it?

ras@njlawfirm.com (Richard Schnoll, Esq.) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:07:30 -0500

I recently handled a case for a lovely young couple and their infant son. They were driving along when suddenly a vehicle raced through a stop sign without stopping and smashed into the side of my client's car. Luckily, no one was killed but the wife suffered fairly significant internal injuries requiring hospitalization. Upon investigation, we determined that the tortfeasor (the car that went through the stop sign) only had a minimum insurance policy of $15,000. Since her case was clearly worth more than $15,000, could we recover from any other source? Underinsured Motorist coverage (UIM) might be such a source.

What is UIM coverage? Coverage that you purchase to protect yourself if you are involved in an accident with a vehicle that has limited coverage. It is relatively inexpensive. It is usually sold in conjunction with Uninsured Motorist coverage (UM) which protects you if you are involved in an accident with a vehicle that either has no insurance, is stolen or is unidentified ( hit and run).

Unfortunately, my client only had UIM coverage of $25,000. Since her carrier is entitled to a credit for money received from the tortfeasor, we could only collect an additional $10,000 for her, not nearly enough to compensate her for her injuries.

The Bottom Line: purchase as much UIM coverage as you can afford.

Parking lot pedestrian accidents and the related legal issues

ras@njlawfirm.com (Richard Schnoll, Esq.) — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:46:28 -0500

I read today on NorthJersey.com about a grandma and her 2 year old granddaughter who were run over by an SUV in a Walmart parking lot. Besides wishing them a speedy recovery, there are some significant legal issues that they need to address:

Who will pay for their medical bills? Pedestrians involved in car accidents generally have the bills paid by their own car insurance company (PIP coverage) assuming they or a family member with whom they reside owns a vehicle. What happens if there is no household vehicle? NJ has the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund (UCJF) which can provide medical payments to uninsured pedestrians if they meet certain requirements. One such requirement is that the offending vehicle be registered in NJ.
Can they sue the operator of the SUV for damages other than medical expenses? Perhaps. NJ has a law that in some circumstances requires the injured party to suffer a serious injury before he/she can sue for pain and suffering. Serious injury is defined as death, dismemberment, loss of a fetus, significant scarring or disfigurement, displaced fracture, or a permanent injury. If either pedestrian is subject to this tort threshold and has not suffered such an injury, they will be precluded from suing.

There are many complicated legal issues involving pedestrian accidents. You should seek legal help to understand your rights.