SYLLABUS
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has
been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the
reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please
note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not
have been summarized).
(NOTE: This Court wrote no full opinion in this case. Rather, the Court’s affirmance of the judgment of the Appellate Division is based substantially on the reasons expressed in Judge Weissbard’s written opinion below.)
Argued September 11, 2006 -- Decided October 12, 2006
PER CURIAM
The issue before the Court is whether an injured passenger, who was not
operating one of his uninsured vehicles at the time of the accident, was
barred, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5a, from recovering non-economic damages.
On August 16, 2000, Victor and Alexandra Dziuba were passengers in an automobile
owned and operated by Scott Fletcher, when it was involved in an accident
with a vehicle owned by Louis Vanderhook and driven by Kristen Vanderhook. Victor
was injured in the accident and received treatment from various doctors. His medical
expenses were approximately $9,300. There were three vehicles in the Dziuba household, but
none were insured at the time of the accident
The Dziubas sued Fletcher, Louis and Kristen Vanderhook, and First Trenton Indemnity Company
(First Trenton), the liability insurance carrier for Fletcher. The claim against First Trenton
was for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. Louis Vanderhook was dismissed from the
case based on a lack of agency. Fletcher and Kristen Vanderhook moved for
summary judgment, contending that the Dziubas were subject to but failed to meet
the verbal threshold. Victor opposed this motion. The motion judge granted the motion,
finding that as an owner of an uninsured vehicle, Victor was “culpably uninsured”
and, therefore, was subject to the verbal threshold. He also found that Victor’s
injuries did not overcome the threshold. The parties did not address and the
judge did not determine whether there was an independent basis for dismissal of
Victor’s claim for non-economic damages.
Thereafter, First Trenton moved for summary judgment on the basis that Victor was
ineligible for economic loss damages, including PIP benefits, because he was “culpably uninsured”
at the time of the accident. Fletcher and Kristen Vanderhook also moved for
summary judgment, relying on the same arguments. The motion judge, based on the
previous finding that Victor was “culpably uninsured,” granted the motions.
Victor appealed to the Appellate Division, arguing that he is not culpably uninsured
and, therefore, is not subject to the verbal threshold. He also contended that
even if he is subject to the verbal threshold, he overcame it. He
also claimed that he is entitled to PIP benefits or, alternatively, economic loss
damages.
The Appellate Division affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that the
trial court was correct in determining that Victor was statutorily barred from collecting
PIP benefits and economic loss damages. The appellate panel noted that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-7b(1)
provides in pertinent part that the insurer may exclude a person from PIP
benefits who at the time of the accident was the owner or registrant
of an automobile registered or principally garaged in New Jersey that was being
operated without personal injury protection coverage. The court noted that the Dziuba home
had three uninsured vehicles that were part of the joint assets of the
home and that Victor was at the very least a beneficial owner of
the uninsured cars at the time of the accident, precluding him from recovering
PIP benefits from First Trenton. The Appellate Division also affirmed the trial court’s
holding that Victor was “culpably uninsured” in relation to economic damages and, therefore,
was precluded from coverage.
On the issue of non-economic damages, the Appellate Division noted that the issue
was one of first impression: whether an individual who is culpably uninsured, and
thus ineligible for PIP benefits, must actually be operating his or her uninsured
vehicle at the time of the accident. The panel determined that, according to
the language of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5, the uninsured vehicle must be the vehicle involved
in accident to preclude its owner/registrant from recovering non-economic damages. The panel based
its holding on specific statutory language providing that the injured culpably uninsured party
shall have no claim to non-economic damages “sustained as a result of an
accident while operating an uninsured automobile.” Accordingly, the Appellate Division reversed the order
of summary judgment only as to the issue of non-economic damages, finding that
because Victor was not operating an uninsured vehicle at the time of the
accident, he was not precluded from recovering such damages.
The Supreme Court granted certification limited to the non-economic damages issue.
HELD: Judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED substantially for the reasons expressed
in Judge Weissbard’s written opinion. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5a does not preclude an injured uninsured
motorist from recovering non-economic damages under a defendant’s policy of automobile insurance when
the uninsured motorist was not operating his uninsured vehicle at the time of
the accident involving defendant’s car.
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES LONG, ZAZZALI, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, WALLACE and RIVERA-SOTO join
in this PER CURIAM opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
A-
90 September Term 2005
VICTOR DZIUBA and ALEXANDRA DZIUBA, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
SCOTT J. FLETCHER,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
KRISTEN L. VANDERHOOK, LOUIS H. VANDERHOOK, JANE DOE EMPLOYER (a fictitious name), and
FIRST TRENTON INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendants.
Argued September 11, 2006 –- Decided October 12, 2006
On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at
382 N.J. Super. 73 (2005).
Michael G.B. David argued the cause for appellant (Lewis & David, attorneys).
Anthony Granato, argued the cause for respondents (Jarve & Kaplan, attorneys).
PER CURIAM
We granted certification in this matter to review the Appellate Division judgment holding
that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5a does not bar plaintiff’s recovery of non-economic damages under the
tortfeasor defendant’s automobile insurance policy. Dziuba v. Fletcher,
382 N.J. Super. 73, 82
(2005), certif. granted,
186 N.J. 363 (2006). As the Appellate Division decision noted,
plaintiff, an uninsured motorist, was not operating his uninsured vehicle when he was
injured in an accident involving defendant’s car. Id. at 76. In such circumstances,
we agree with the Appellate Division that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5a does not preclude an
injured plaintiff from recovering non-economic damages under a defendant’s policy of automobile insurance.
Accordingly, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Weissbard’s opinion, we affirm the
Appellate Division’s judgment.
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES LONG, ZAZZALI, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join
in this per curiam opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
NO. A-90 SEPTEMBER TERM 2005
ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court
VICTOR DZIUBA and
ALEXANDRA DZIUBA,
husband and wife,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
SCOTT J. FLETCHER,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
KRISTEN L. VANDERHOOK,
LOUIS H. VANDERHOOK,
JANE DOE EMPLOYER (a
fictitious name), and
FIRST TRENTON INDEMNITY
COMPANY,
Defendants.
DECIDED October 12, 2006
Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING
OPINION BY Per Curiam
CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY
DISSENTING OPINION BY
CHECKLIST