Hoglin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 November 1976
• Citation: 366 A.2d 345,144 N.J.Super. 475
• Parties: Wayne HOGLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 475

144 N.J.Super. 475

366 A.2d 345

Wayne HOGLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued Sept. 28, 1976.

Decided Nov. 9, 1976.

Edward K. Zuckerman, Somerset, for plaintiff-appellant (Rosenhouse, Cutler & Zuckerman, Somerset, attorneys).

Laurence M. McHeffey for defendant-respondent (Hanlon & McHeffey, West Long Branch, attorneys).

Before Judges LORA, CRANE and MICHELS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

MICHELS, J.A.D.

Plaintiff Wayne Hoglin appeals from a judgment of the Law Division in favor of defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. Plaintiff sought reimbursement under the Basic Personal Injury Protection Endorsement (PIP) provisions of the comprehensive automobile insurance policy issued to him by defendant for medical expenses incurred as the result of bodily injury sustained in an automobile accident.

The facts essential to the resolution of the coverage question involved are not in dispute. Plaintiff was injured when the motorcycle he was operating struck an automobile owned and operated by another. At the time of the accident plaintiff was the named insured in an automobile policy covering his 1970 Ford van. His claim for medical expense benefits was made under the PIP endorsement of that policy. It provides, in pertinent part, basic personal injury protection coverage to 'each eligible injured person' consisting of:

(a) medical expense benefits,

(b) income continuation benefits,

(c) essential services benefits,

(d) survivor benefits, and

(e) funeral expense benefits with respect to bodily injury, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use, including loading or unloading, of a private passenger automobile as an automobile.

Under that policy, an eligible injured person is defined 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, as a result of physical contact with a private automobile or an object propelled by or from such an automobile: or

(b) any other person who sustains bodily injury

(1) while, with the permission of the Named Insured, occupying, using, entering into or alighting from the insured automobile, or

(2) while a pedestrian, as a result of physical contact with the insured automobile or an object propelled by or from the insured automobile;

A private passenger automobile is defined as:

* * * a self-propelled vehicle designed for use principally on public roads and which is one of the following types:

(1) a private passenger or station wagon type automobile,

(2) a pick-up or panel truck or delivery sedan, or

(3) a utility automobile designed for personal use as a camper or motor home or for family recreational purposes; but

a private passenger automobile does not include a motorcycle, an automobile used as a public or livery conveyance for passengers, a pick-up or panel truck, delivery sedan or utility automobile customarily used for business, occupational or professional purposes other than farming or ranching or a utility automobile customarily used for the transportation of passengers other than members of the user's family or their guests;

Defendant denied coverage, contending that plaintiff was not an 'eligible injured person' under the PIP endorsement because he sustained bodily injury while operating a motorcycle and not while 'occupying, using, entering into or alighting from a private passenger automobile.' The trial court, on cross-motions for summary judgment, agreed. It held that the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act, commonly referred to as the 'No Fault Law' (N.J.S.A. 39:6A--1 Et seq.) required the payment of benefits to persons sustaining bodily injury as a result of an accident involving the operation of an automobile not a motorcycle, and that the PIP endorsement of plaintiff's policy expressly excluded the operation of a motorcycle from the coverage provided thereunder. Plaintiff appeals.

N.J.S.A. 39:6--46 mandates that a motor vehicle liability policy issued with respect to an automobile registered or primarily garaged in New Jersey shall ensure 'personal injury protection coverage as provided in the 'New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act,' * * *' N.J.S.A. 39:6A--4 of the No Fault Law provides in pertinent part:

Every automobile liability insurance policy insuring an automobile as defined in this act against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury, death and property damage sustained by any person arising out of ownership, operation, maintenance or use of an automobile shall provide additional coverage, as defined herein below, under provisions approved by the Commissioner of Insurance, for the payment of benefits without regard to negligence, liability or fault of any kind, to 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, to other persons sustaining bodily injury while occupying the automobile of the named insured or while using such automobile with the permission of the named insured and to pedestrians, sustaining bodily injury caused by the named insured's automobile or struck by an object propelled by or from such automobile. * * *

The purpose of our No Fault Law, as of most no fault legislation, is to afford reparation or at least partial reparation for the objectively provable economic losses resulting from automobile accidents. See Am.Jur.2d, No Fault Insurance, § 1 at 3 (New Topic Service, 1973). Our law requires prompt payment of medical expenses, lost wages, essential services, survivor benefits and funeral expenses to certain classes of persons injured in an automobile accident without regard to negligence, liability or fault and without having to await the outcome of protracted litigation. N.J.S.A 39:6A--4 and 39:6A--5. See Ortiz v. Safeco, 136 N.J.Super. 532, 535, 347 A.2d 26 (Law Div.1975), mod. on other grounds 144 N.J.Super. 506, 366 A.2d 695 (App.Div.1976); Harris v. Osorio, 125 N.J.Super. 468, 469, 311 A.2d 748 (Law Div.1973).

The classification of injured persons covered by the law is limited to (1) the named insured and members of his family residing in his household, (2) passengers occupying the automobile of the named insured, (3) persons using the automobile of the named insured with his permission, and (4) pedestrians injured by the insured's automobile or by being struck by objects propelled by or from that automobile. N.J.S.A. 39:6A--4; Pa. Mfrs. Ass'n Ins. Co. v. Gov't Emp. Ins. Co., 136 N.J.Super. 491, 497, 347 A.2d 5 (App.Div.1975), certif. granted 69 N.J. 392, 354 A.2d 320 (1976).

The named insured and members of his family residing in his household are afforded broader coverage under...