Ortiz v. Safeco Ins. Co.

Decision Date14 October 1976
Citation366 A.2d 695,144 N.J.Super. 506
PartiesEtelvina ORTIZ, as general Administratrix of the Estate of Carmello Ortiz, and individually in her own right, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Louis D. Fletcher, Woodbury, for plaintiff-appellant (Falciani & DiMuzio, Woodbury, attorneys).

Robert Neustadter, Atlantic City, for defendant-respondent (Cooper, Perskie, Neustadter & Katzman, Atlantic City, attorneys).

Before Judges LORA, CRANE and MICHELS.

PER CURIAM.

On cross-motions for summary judgment the trial judge held that plaintiff was entitled to recover survivor benefits under N.J.S.A. 39:6A--4 on account of the death of her husband who, while a pedestrian, was struck and killed by an automobile driven by an assured of defendant insurance company. The judge also held that plaintiff was not entitled to recover additional benefits under N.J.S.A. 39:6A--10. The opinion of the trial judge is reported at 136 N.J.Super. 532, 347 A.2d 26. After the filing of that opinion, plaintiff moved for interest and counsel fees. The judge denied the motion for interest but awarded a counsel fee of $250. Plaintiff appeals.

We are in essential agreement with the rulings of the trial judge as expressed in his opinion. We are of the view, however, that he erred in denying interest. N.J.S.A. 39:6A--5(b) provides:

Personal injury protection coverage benefits shall be overdue if not paid within 30 days after the insurer is furnished written notice of the fact of a covered loss and the amount of the same.

N.J.S.A. 39:6A--5(c) provides that

All overdue payments shall bear simple interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.

The statutory language is mandatory. The insurer can avoid the payment of interest only where it 'has reasonable proof to establish that the insurer is not responsible for the payment. * * *' N.J.S.A. 39:6A--5(b). The allowance of interest is not, as defendant argues, dependent upon the presence or absence of good faith on the part of the insurer. The judgment will be modified to provide for interest to be computed at the rate of 10% From February 22, 1974, which date is 30 days after written notice to defendant insurer was made.

The allowance of the counsel fee was presumably made pursuant to R. 4:42--9(a)(6) which permits such allowances to a successful claimant in an action upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Griswold v. Union Labor Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • March 23, 1982
    ...So.2d 73, 78 (Fla.App.1978); Ortiz v. Safeco Ins. Co., 136 N.J.Super. 532, 535, 347 A.2d 26 (1975), modified, Ortiz v. Safeco Ins. Co., 144 N.J.Super. 506, 366 A.2d 695 (1976); Singer v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 274 Pa.Super. 359, 361, 418 A.2d 446 (1980). "(A)s between plaintiffs and defendant......
  • Milcarek v. Nationwide Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • May 19, 1983
    ...interest at the statutory rate, which is in excess of the legal rate of interest, is excused. We do not conceive Ortiz v. Safeco Ins. Co., 144 N.J.Super. 506 (App.Div.1976), certif. den. 73 N.J. 63 (1977), as taking a contrary view. We agree with Ortiz that the subjective good faith of the ......
  • Clendaniel v. New Jersey Manufacturers Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1984
    ...today. In Ortiz v. Safeco Ins. Co., 136 N.J.Super. 532, 536, 347 A.2d 26 (Law Div.1975), modified on other grounds, 144 N.J.Super. 506, 366 A.2d 695 (App.Div.1976), the trial court held that Section 10 benefits were not available to a pedestrian. In DeSimone v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 149......
  • Mokienko v. Greenan
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • February 4, 1981
    ...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). (at 479-480, 366 A.2d The Supreme Court has indic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT