Giambri v. Government Employees Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1979
• Citation: 170 N.J.Super. 140,405 A.2d 872
• Parties: Salvatore A. GIAMBRI, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 140

170 N.J.Super. 140

405 A.2d 872

Salvatore A. GIAMBRI, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division.

June 29, 1979.

Anthony P. Costa, Laurel Springs, for plaintiff (Crisafulli, Rafferty & Costa, Laurel Springs, attorneys).

C. Kennon Hendrix, Pennsauken, for defendant (Roy D. Cummins, Pennsauken, attorney).

CORUZZI, J. S. C.

This matter is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The relevant facts are not in dispute and therefore the matter is ripe for summary judgment. R. 4:46.

Defendant issued an automobile liability insurance policy to Giambri Quality Sweets, a family-owned corporation. The policy specifically covered four automobiles owned by the corporation. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4, coverage for personal injury protection (PIP benefits) was included.

During the coverage period plaintiff Salvatore A. Giambri sustained injuries when an uninsured motorcycle he was riding collided with an automobile being driven by another person. At the time of the accident plaintiff was an employee of the corporation and was a member of the family which owned the corporation. When defendant declined coverage for PIP benefits, plaintiff instituted this action.

N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4 requires that PIP benefits be made available to the named insured and members of his family residing in his household, to other persons occupying the automobile of the named insured or while using such automobile with the permission of the named insured, and to pedestrians involved in an accident with the automobile of the named insured. PMA v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 136 N.J.Super. 491, 347 A.2d 5 (App.Div.1975), aff'd 72 N.J. 348, 370 A.2d 855 (1977).

Three of the four statutory categories do not apply in this case. Plaintiff was not using an automobile of the named insured, either as a passenger or as a permissive user. Nor was plaintiff involved in an accident as a pedestrian.

Plaintiff contends that he is entitled, as a matter of law, to PIP benefits under the corporation policy under the one remaining statutory category as a member of the family of the named insured. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4. Specifically, plaintiff argues that while the corporation is technically the named insured, it does not drive automobiles or sustain personal injuries. Since the corporation is family-held and since the insured corporation's automobiles are used by the family for both business and family use, plaintiff asserts that the family is the true named insured. As a member of the household of the "true" named insured, plaintiff claims coverage.

While it is true that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4 is to be liberally construed to provide the broadest coverage possible, Brokenbaugh v. New Jersey Manufacturers Ins. Co., 158 N.J.Super. 424, 386 A.2d 433 (App.Div.1978), such construction must be consistent with the language of the pertinent statute. Motor Club of America Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 66 N.J. 277, 293, 330 A.2d 360 (1974). In the case before this court, plaintiff is seeking to place an extremely broad interpretation on the category of the named insured "and members of his family".

Essentially, plaintiff asks the court to ignore the corporate entity in this matter by treating the corporation's automobile policy as a family policy. However, insufficient reasons have been given to justify piercing the corporate veil. To the contrary, this court is satisfied that the decision to place the policy in question in the name of the corporation was made deliberately for business and income tax reasons and should not be...