Judge Bars Lawsuit by Injured NJ Driver Who Maintained Fla. Insurance
A man who lives in New Jersey but kept his car registered and insured in Florida may not sue another New Jersey driver for injuries he sustained in a car accident, a judge has ruled.
November 30, 2017 at 01:36 PM
3 minute read
A man who lives in New Jersey but kept his car registered and insured in Florida may not sue another New Jersey driver for injuries he sustained in a car accident, a judge has ruled.
Essex County Superior Court Judge Patrick Bartels dismissed plaintiff Jeffrey Scholes' personal injury lawsuit against defendant Stephen Hausmann on Oct. 24.
Bartels ruled that it would violate the state's automobile insurance statutes to permit Scholes to pursue a claim against Hausmann when he fraudulently maintained a Florida automobile insurance policy while living in New Jersey.
“By any definition, plaintiff was a New Jersey resident,” Bartels said.
According to the ruling, Scholes was “severely injured” when his car was struck by Hausmann's on Oct. 23, 2014, in South Orange. Scholes was driving north on Academy Street in South Orange when, according to the lawsuit, he was struck head-on by Haumann's car.
Scholes, the lawsuit said, sustained back injuries that required epidural injections and surgery.
Bartels, however, noted that Scholes had been living and working in New Jersey since 2009, and kept his car here. Nevertheless, because it was more cost-effective, Scholes maintained a Florida insurance policy issued by GEICO, registered his car there and had a Florida driver's license.
Hausmann moved to have Scholes' lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that New Jersey law requires that people who live in the state and who have a car here must maintain New Jersey car insurance.
Bartels agreed. “[W]e agree that plaintiff's automobile is not considered insured pursuant to New Jersey law,” he said.
Scholes had argued that he “technically” had car insurance and that New Jersey's statutes were only meant to bar injured drivers from suing if they had no insurance themselves.
Bartels disagreed, and noted that Scholes had technically committed a crime in violation of the state's insurance fraud statute.
“The defendant argues that this statute was specifically revised to prevent reverse rate evasion, which occurs when New Jersey residents or those who principally garage their car in New Jersey seek to obtain cheaper insurance from another state,” Bartels said.
“This illegal conduct is exactly what plaintiff admitted to doing in the instant case,” the judge said. Scholes, the ruling said, testified during a deposition that he never sought to obtain insurance in New Jersey because it would be too expensive.
To allow Scholes to sue Hausmann would “undermine the purpose and policy” of the statutes, and “completely eviscerate” them, Bartels said.
Hausmann was represented by Patricia Holden, of Mount Laurel's Cipriani & Werner. She was away from her office and unavailable for comment.
Michael Maggiano, of Maggiano, DiGirolamo & Lizzi, represented Scholes. He maintains that that Scholes had insurance and should be afforded coverage.
Bartels' ruling is currently being appealed, according to an email from Holden.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250