Watkins v. Davis
| Decision Date | 25 October 1993 |
| Citation | 633 A.2d 112,268 N.J.Super. 211 |
| Parties | Martin WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret DAVIS, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Alan M. Tepper, Cherry Hill, argued the cause for appellant, and on the brief.
Gregory Drews, Whitehouse, argued the cause for respondent (Martin & Simmonds, attys., Mr. Drews on the brief).
Gerald Baker, Hoboken, argued the cause for amicus curiae ATLA-NJ (Baker, Garber, Duffy & Pederson, Hoboken, attys., Stark & Stark, attys., Richard J. Alphonse, Lawrenceville, on the brief).
Fred DeVesa, Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, atty. for amicus curiae State of New Jersey (Joseph L. Yannotti, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel, Allan J. Nodes, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief).
Before Judges SHEBELL, LONG and LANDAU.
We affirm the order from which this appeal is taken substantially for the reasons expressed by the Honorable Edmund R. Bernhard, J.S.C., in his written opinion, reported at 259 N.J.Super. 482, 614 A.2d 189 (Law Div.1992). It is clear that N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 was viewed by the Legislature as a necessary part of the reform needed to accomplish its goal of relieving insurers from having to pay non-economic damages to people who are not seriously injured. The Legislature's action in extending the verbal threshold to certain out-of-state owners operating their vehicles in this state serves many legitimate purposes, only one of which is the providing of Personal Injury Protection coverage to out-of-state drivers at the same level as is provided for New Jersey motorists. In Adams v. Keystone Insurance Co., 264 N.J.Super. 367, 378, 624 A.2d 1008 (App.Div.1993), we held that such automatic reformation of out-of-state policies issued by
insurers doing business in New Jersey is justified by a significant and legitimate public purpose.
Further, we are convinced that Judge Bernhard properly applied the holding in Oswin v. Shaw, 129 N.J. 290, 609 A.2d 415 (1992), in determining that plaintiff failed to meet the verbal threshold. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any basis for disturbing that determination.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitaker v. DeVilla
...and rational. [Id. at 377-78, 624 A.2d 1008.] Watkins v. Davis, 259 N.J.Super. 482, 614 A.2d 189 (Law Div.1992), aff'd, 268 N.J.Super. 211, 633 A.2d 112 (App.Div.1993), was the first case to challenge the deemer statute's application of the verbal threshold to a non-resident plaintiff. Id. ......
-
Chalef v. Ryerson
...Id. at 294, 609 A.2d 415. See also Watkins v. Davis, 259 N.J.Super. 482, 493, 614 A.2d 189 (Law Div.1992), aff'd, 268 N.J.Super. 211, 633 A.2d 112 (App.Div.1993). The trial court's verbal threshold determination consists of two questions: (1) whether the plaintiff's injuries fall within any......
-
Aetna Sur. and Cas. Co. v. Sacchetti
...in automobile accidents in New Jersey. Watkins v. Davis, 259 N.J.Super. 482, 491, 614 A.2d 189 (Law Div.1992), aff'd, 268 N.J.Super. 211, 633 A.2d 112 (App.Div.1993). The court in Watkins held that a rational basis existed for imposing the verbal threshold on out-of-state operators, even th......
-
Guy v. Petty
...common law cause of action." Ibid.; accord Watkins v. Davis, 259 N.J.Super. 482, 489, 614 A.2d 189 (Law Div.1992), aff'd 268 N.J.Super. 211, 633 A.2d 112 (App.Div.1993) (stating that the ability to sue for automobile accidents is not a fundamental right); cf. Suchit v. Baxt, 176 N.J.Super. ......