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 CompanyOpinion
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.