From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beek v. Ohio Casualty Insurance

Supreme Court of New Jersey
May 13, 1977
73 N.J. 185 (N.J. 1977)

Summary

In Beek the Court ruled that denial of coverage to a named insured for collisions involving his vehicle and other uninsured vehicles on the ground that the insured's vehicle was not listed on the policy is impermissible as contrary to the statutory intent and purpose of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. Beek v. Ohio Cas.Ins. Co., supra, 135 N.J. Super. at 5.

Summary of this case from Fernandez v. Selected Risks Insurance Company

Opinion

Argued March 7, 1977 —

Decided May 13, 1977.

Appeal from Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Mr. Thomas M. Guiney argued the cause for appellant ( Messrs. DeYoe, Guiney and Raziano, attorneys).

Mr. Elwyn Saviet argued the cause for respondent ( Messrs. Gelman and Gelman, attorneys).


We affirm essentially for the reasons expressed by Judge Bischoff, 135 N.J. Super. 1 (App.Div. 1975). The principle expressed in Motor Club of America Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 66 N.J. 277 (1974) is equally applicable to the factual situation here. We see no reason to differentiate between the plaintiff's use of a non-owned or owned vehicle insofar as recovery is warranted under the uninsured motorist endorsement in a separate policy on another vehicle owned by the plaintiff. For affirmance — Chief Justice HUGHES, Justices MOUNTAIN, SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD and SCHREIBER and Judge CONFORD — 7.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Beek v. Ohio Casualty Insurance

Supreme Court of New Jersey
May 13, 1977
73 N.J. 185 (N.J. 1977)

In Beek the Court ruled that denial of coverage to a named insured for collisions involving his vehicle and other uninsured vehicles on the ground that the insured's vehicle was not listed on the policy is impermissible as contrary to the statutory intent and purpose of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1. Beek v. Ohio Cas.Ins. Co., supra, 135 N.J. Super. at 5.

Summary of this case from Fernandez v. Selected Risks Insurance Company

In Beek v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 73 N.J. 185 (1977), this Court, in affirming per curiam the Appellate Division, 135 N.J. Super. 1 (App.Div. 1975), struck down an owned-but-uninsured exclusion provision and permitted an insured automobile owner to collect from his insurer for injuries suffered in a collision with an uninsured vehicle while the insured was riding a motorcycle which was not listed as an insured vehicle on his insurance policy.

Summary of this case from Fernandez v. Selected Risks Insurance Company
Case details for

Beek v. Ohio Casualty Insurance

Case Details

Full title:RONALD BEEK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: May 13, 1977

Citations

73 N.J. 185 (N.J. 1977)
373 A.2d 654

Citing Cases

Lundy v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co.

This liability exists irrespective of whether the insured vehicle was involved in the accident. This…

Longo v. Market Transition Facility

Craig Pomeroy, New Jersey Auto Insurance Law, § 20:4-2b (1998). The authors cite two cases in support of…