Beek v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 May 1977 |
| Citation | 373 A.2d 654,73 N.J. 185 |
| Parties | Ronald BEEK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Thomas M. Guiney, Paterson, for defendant-appellant (DeYoe, Guiney & Raziano, Paterson, attorneys).
Elwyn Saviet, Paterson, for plaintiff-respondent (Gelman & Gelman, Paterson, attorneys).
We affirm essentially for the reasons expressed by Judge Bischoff, 135 N.J.Super. 1, 342 A.2d 547 (App.Div.1975). The principle expressed in Motor Club of America Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 66 N.J. 277, 330 A.2d 360 (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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Metropolitan Property and Liability Ins. Co., 1142
...Co., 216 Pa.Super. 162, 264 A.2d 197 (1970) and Beek v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 135 N.J.Super. 1, 342 A.2d 547 (1975), aff'd, 73 N.J. 185, 373 A.2d 654 (1977) with Employers' Fire Ins. Co. v. Baker, 383 A.2d 1005 (R.I. 1978) and Rodriquez v. Maryland Indem. Ins. Co., 24 Ariz.App. 392, 539 P......
-
Mitchell v. Broudnax
...exclusion violates public policy); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hinkel, 87 Nev. 478, 488 P.2d 1151 (1971); Beek v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 73 N.J. 185, 373 A.2d 654 (1977); Chavez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 87 N.M. 327, 533 P.2d 100 (1975); Cothren v. Emcasco Ins. Co., 555 P.2d 103......
-
Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 17675-PR
...481 Pa. 130, 392 A.2d 281 (1978); Kau v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 58 Hawaii 49, 564 P.2d 443 (1977); Beek v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 73 N.J. 185, 373 A.2d 654 (1977), affirming the lower court decision reported at 135 N.J.Super. 1, 342 A.2d 547 (App.Div.1975); Cothren v. Emcasco Ins.......
-
Cardin v. Royal Ins. Co. of America
...Co., 87 N.M. 327, 329-330, 533 P.2d 100 (1975); Beek v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 135 N.J.Super. 1, 342 A.2d 547 (1975), aff'd, 73 N.J. 185, 373 A.2d 654 (1977). We recognize that the effect of our decision will be to allow insured motorists to "stack" their uninsured motorist coverage. 7 We ......