Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » New Jersey » Superior Court of New Jersey » 1998 » VINCENT NORCIA, ET AL., VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INS., CO., ET AL
VINCENT NORCIA, ET AL., VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INS., CO., ET AL
State: New Jersey
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: none
Case Date: 02/13/1998

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

                            SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                            APPELLATE DIVISION
                            A-3106-96T1

VINCENT NORCIA, Administrator and
Administrator Ad Prosequendum of the
Estate of LIVIO A. NORCIA, deceased,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

    v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and
NEW JERSEY AUTOMOBILE FULL INSURANCE
UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION,

        Defendants-Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________

        Argued: January 22, 1998 - Decided: February 13, 1998

        Before Judges Baime, Wefing and Braithwaite.

        On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, whose opinion is reported at 297 N.J. Super. 563 (Law Div. 1996).

        Vincent P. Manning argued the cause for appellant (Schottland, Manning & Rosen, attorneys; Mr. Manning, of counsel; Patricia B. Adams, on the brief).

        Narinder S. Parmar argued the cause for respondents (Sellar Richardson, attorneys; James P. Richardson, of counsel; Mr. Parmar, on the brief).
    The opinion of the court was delivered by
BRAITHWAITE, J.A.D.
    Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment dismissing his complaint seeking $300,000 in uninsured motorist benefits or, in

the alternative, directing that his claim proceed to binding arbitration under the policy. On appeal plaintiff contends:

        POINT I

        THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THEREBY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM.

        POINT II

        THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY DENIED PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
    We agree that the vehicle owned by the United States was not an uninsured motor vehicle and affirm that issue substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Koch in his published opinion reported at 297 N.J. Super. 563 (Law Div. 1996). We express no view on the statute of limitations issue resolved by the judge in plaintiff's favor. Defendants did not cross-appeal from that determination.
    Affirmed.

- -

New Jersey Law

New Jersey State Laws
New Jersey Tax
New Jersey Labor Laws
New Jersey Agencies
    > New Jersey DMV

Comments

Tips