Amiano v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 January 1981
• Parties: Daniel AMIANO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 85

85 N.J. 85

424 A.2d 1179

Daniel AMIANO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Oct. 6, 1980.

Decided Jan. 28, 1981.

Alan H. Bernstein, East Orange, for defendant-appellant (Brach, Eichler, Rosenberg, Silver, Bernstein & Hammer, East Orange, attorneys; Lance A. Posner, East Orange, on the brief).

Jac B. Weiseman, Newark, for plaintiff-respondent (Blume & Weiseman, Newark, attorneys).

Jerome S. Lieb, Morristown, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae National Ass'n of Independent Insurers (Lieb, Berlin & Kaplan, Morristown, attorneys).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

SULLIVAN, J.

This case presents the question whether the personal injury protection (PIP) endorsement, a mandatory part of every New Jersey automobile liability insurance policy under the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act (No Fault Act), N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1 et seq., extends coverage to an insured who, while operating a commercial truck not covered by PIP,¹ is injured in an accident involving a passenger automobile. The trial court and the Appellate Division held that the insured was entitled to PIP coverage. These rulings adhered to a prior decision by the Appellate Division on the same issue, Hoglin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 144 N.J.Super. 475, 366 A.2d 345 (App.Div.1976). For reasons hereinafter set forth, we affirm.

The essential facts are undisputed. Plaintiff Daniel Amiano, while operating a commercial truck, sustained personal injuries when the truck collided with two automobiles. The accident occurred on April 3, 1977 in Green Brook Township, Somerset County. The truck was owned by plaintiff's employer-brother for whom plaintiff regularly worked as a carpenter foreman. At the time of the accident, however, plaintiff was returning home from performing some personal carpentry work not in the course of his regular employment. Consequently, his medical expenses and other losses were not covered by workers' compensation.

At the time of the accident plaintiff's wife, Marianne Amiano, was the owner of an automobile insured under a liability policy issued by defendant Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (Ohio). The policy provided PIP coverage. It is undisputed that Daniel Amiano, as a resident of the same household, was an insured under the policy. Plaintiff filed a claim for PIP benefits consisting of medical expenses, income continuation and essential services. Ohio denied the claim on the ground that plaintiff was not an "eligible injured person" as defined in section 1 of the policy since he had been driving a commercial truck at the time of the accident. ²

Plaintiff then filed the present suit seeking compensatory damages for the benefits withheld and punitive damages based on defendant's alleged willful and wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights, together with interest, counsel fees and costs. The trial court found in favor of plaintiff and awarded him PIP benefits in the amount of $2,300. The claims for punitive damages and for costs were denied. A counsel fee of $2,258.75 was allowed, however, together with 10% interest on the amount of the award. The Appellate Division, in an unreported opinion, affirmed. Defendant's petition for certification was granted. Plaintiff's cross-petition on the issue of punitive damages was denied. 84 N.J. 411, 420 A.2d 328 (1980).

Ohio argues that plaintiff is not entitled to benefits since section 1 of the PIP endorsement contained in the Amiano policy defines an "eligible injured person" as

(a) the named insured or any relative of the named insured, if the named insured or relative sustains bodily injury

(1) while occupying, using, entering into or alighting from a private passenger automobile, or

(2) while a pedestrian, caused by a private passenger automobile or as a result of being struck by an object propelled by or from such an automobile ....

Ohio asserts that this limitation on eligibility is consistent with section 4 of the No Fault Act which requires every liability policy insuring an automobile as defined in the act to provide PIP benefits for "the named insured and members of his family residing in his household who sustained bodily injury as a result of an accident involving an automobile." N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.

In Hoglin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., supra, the Appellate Division dealt with the same issue in the context of an automobile-motorcycle accident. In that case, the motorcycle operator injured in the accident was the owner of an automobile insured under a liability policy issued to him by Nationwide. He filed a claim for PIP benefits under his liability policy which Nationwide rejected because the policy contained the same definition of "eligible injured person" as is found in the Ohio policy.

The Appellate Division held that Hoglin was entitled to PIP benefits under his automobile liability policy despite the fact that he was operating a motorcycle when the accident occurred. 144 N.J.Super. at 481-482, 366 A.2d 345. The court noted that section 4 of the No Fault Act "requires the payment of PIP benefits to the named insured and members of his family 'who sustained bodily injury as a result of an accident involving an automobile.' " Id. at 480, 366 A.2d 345 (quoting N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4; emphasis in Hoglin ). It held that this language evidenced a clear legislative intent to provide PIP coverage to insureds who sustained injury as a result of any accident involving an automobile.

The Appellate Division found no reasonable basis to "construe the statute as limiting coverage to accidents involving automobiles solely." Id. at 480, 366 A.2d 345. The attempt by the insurer to restrict PIP coverage to injuries incurred while occupying, using, entering into or alighting from a private passenger automobile was held to conflict with the clear statutory mandate and to be contrary to public policy. Id. at 481-482, 366 A.2d 345. The court noted that the original statutory language had limited PIP benefits to insureds "who sustained bodily injury as a result of an automobile accident," but that this provision had been amended by L.1972 c. 203, § 3 to include broader coverage for "injury as a result of an accident involving an automobile." Id. at 480, 366 A.2d 345.

In sum, the Appellate Division held that, even though the insured under an automobile liability policy was operating a motorcycle at the time of the accident, so long as the accident involved an automobile, the insured was entitled to PIP benefits under his automobile liability policy.

Defendant Ohio (joined by amicus National Association of Independent Insurers) argues that the Appellate Division decision in Hoglin is incorrect. It concedes that the change in the statutory language from "automobile accident" to "accident involving an automobile" was made in order to broaden PIP coverage, but insists that the change does not have the broad ramifications found by the Appellate Division in Hoglin.

In the main, defendant relies on what it calls legislative history of the 1972 amendment and on extrinsic aids to construction which it claims support its position. Among the items submitted is an affidavit by the former...