Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Colonial Penn. Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

214 N.J. Super. 453 (App. Div. 1986)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Colonial Penn. Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Wilson v. Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund Bd.

    109 N.J. 271 (N.J. 1988)   Cited 44 times
    In Wilson, we held that a qualified injured party could recover PIP benefits from the UCJF without first exhausting efforts to collect the expenses in an action directly against the tortfeasor.

    We do not base our decision on the retroactivity of those amendments. SeeColonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 214 N.J. Super. 453 (App.Div. 1986) (1983 amendments prospective); but seeCokenakes v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 208 N.J. Super. 308 (Law Div. 1985) (holding to the contrary). We believe, however, that the 1983 amendments are instructive as to legislative intent.

  2. Darel v. Pa. Manufacturer's Ins. Co.

    226 N.J. Super. 292 (App. Div. 1987)   Cited 3 times

    Therefore, the amended, more restrictive provision of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4 may not be applied to the accident in question. See Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 214 N.J. Super. 453, 456 (App.Div. 198 6). Plaintiff is therefore eligible to recover personal injury protection benefits even though she was not actually struck by a motor vehicle.