Buoni v. Browning Ferres Industries
Decision Date | 10 March 1987 |
Citation | 529 A.2d 1044,219 N.J.Super. 96 |
Parties | F. Thomas BUONI, Jr., Plaintiff, v. BROWNING FERRES INDUSTRIES and Frank W. Evans, Defendants. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
In this automobile accident case defendants Browning Ferres Industries and Frank W. Evans have moved for summary judgment on the ground that the claim of plaintiff Thomas Buoni, Jr. is barred by the dismissal with prejudice of a prior suit and the release of plaintiff's claims.
On May 2, 1985, Mr. Buoni filed a suit against Browning Ferres and Evans which alleged that on December 19, 1984 a motor vehicle owned by Browning Ferres Industries and negligently operated by its employee, Frank W. Evans, collided with Mr. Buoni's car, causing him serious injury. All of the parties resided in New Jersey and the accident took place in this State. The suit was settled and was dismissed with prejudice by a stipulation dated May 29, 1986, filed July 10, 1986. In connection with the settlement, Mr. Buoni released all claims he might have had against Browning Ferres and Evans in exchange for $8,250 compensation for bodily injury and $5,000 for property damage.
The present suit was filed December 5, 1986. The parties named as plaintiff and defendants, and the allegations of the complaint, are the same in this suit as in its predecessor. However, the suit now pending, unlike the first action, actually involves only the claim of Mr. Buoni's insurance carrier, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, for reimbursement of PIP (Personal Injury Protection) payments it has made to Mr. Buoni as its insured.
The insurer's PIP reimbursement claim is based on N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. By the terms of that statute, plaintiff's insurer, upon "paying personal injury protection benefits ... as a result of an accident occurring within this State" has the "right to recover the amount of payments from any tortfeasor who was not, at the time of the accident, required to maintain personal injury protection ... coverage...."
The statutory prerequisites to the right of the plaintiff's insurer to recover personal injury protection payments have been satisfied. It has paid personal injury protection benefits to Mr. Buoni, the plaintiff. The payments were made as the result of an accident that occurred in New Jersey. And, since the vehicle owned by Browning Ferres, which collided with Mr. Buoni's car, was a commercially operated truck, the defendants were not required to maintain personal injury protection coverage because that requirement is imposed only upon the owner of an "automobile", a term specifically defined by the statute to exclude commercially operated trucks. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2, -3, and -4; Rybeck v. Rybeck, 141 N.J.Super. 481, 503, 358 A.2d 828 (Law Div.1976), appeal dismissed on other grounds, 150 N.J.Super. 151, 375 A.2d 269 (App.Div.1977), cert. den., 75 N.J. 30, 379 A.2d 261 (1977). Cf. Lattimer v. Boucher, 189 N.J.Super. 33, 458 A.2d 528 (Law Div.1983)). Plaintiff's insurer is therefore entitled to recover the PIP benefits it has paid, unless its claim is barred by the settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the prior suit or by Mr. Buoni's release of all claims.
For purposes of determining the effect of that dismissal and release upon the present claim, it is of fundamental significance that the right to recovery of PIP benefits asserted in this suit is founded upon N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, a statute that was adopted in 1983 (and amended in 1985 in ways not material to this suit). The language of that statute, read in the light of the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Aetna Ins. Co. v. Gilchrist Brothers, Inc., 85 N.J. 550, 428 A.2d 1254 (1981), establishes that the insurer's right to reimbursement for PIP benefit payments does not arise by subrogation. It is a right that did not belong to, and could not have been asserted by, Mr. Buoni, the nominal plaintiff in this action.
Since the PIP claim that is at issue in this case, although asserted in Mr. Buoni's name, was not Mr. Buoni's, he could not have released it whether or not he intended to do so. The case of Melick v. Stanley, 174 N.J.Super. 271, 416 A.2d 415 (Law Div.1980), aff'd. 181 N.J.Super. 128, 436 A.2d 954 (App.Div.1981), relied on by the defendants, is not to the contrary even though the court did hold in that case that the insurer's right to recover PIP payments from its insured's tortfeasors was a subrogation right. The court reached that conclusion on two alternative grounds. First, it held that Delaware law governed and, "Unlike New Jersey, Delaware law mandates subrogation rights for insurers which have paid PIP benefits to persons covered...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Licensed Beverage Ins. Exchange
...on the injured party's insurer.' " Wilson, supra, 109 N.J. at 280, 536 A.2d 752 (quoting Buoni v. Browning Ferres Indus., 219 N.J.Super. 96, 100, 529 A.2d 1044 (Law Div.1987)); accord UCJF, supra, 138 N.J. at 191, 649 A.2d 1243; Sherman, supra, 251 N.J.Super. at 356, 598 A.2d 242. That righ......
-
Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Bd. v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.
...A.2d 594 (App.Div.1993); Range v. McLarty, 246 N.J.Super. 196, 199, 586 A.2d 1364 (Law Div.1990); Buoni v. Browning Ferres Indus., 219 N.J.Super. 96, 99-100, 529 A.2d 1044 (Law Div.1987). In addition, the statute allows PIP carriers to recover not from other PIP carriers but from non-PIP ca......
-
United Statesa Cas. Ins. Co. v. Smith
...not make recovery depend upon a claim the insurer acquires by subrogation to the right of its insured.” Buoni v. Browning Ferres Indus., 219 N.J.Super. 96, 529 A.2d 1044, 1046 (1987). Second, § 39:6A–9.1 added the phrase “as a result of an accident occurring within this State,” a phrase tha......
-
Wilson v. Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund Bd.
...not required to maintain PIP coverage or against a tortfeasor who failed to carry PIP protection. Buoni v. Browning Ferres Indus., 219 N.J.Super. 96, 99-100, 529 A.2d 1044 (Law Div.1987). In the case of in-state accidents the insurer's right of reimbursement is governed by agreement of the ......