VINCENT NORCIA, ET AL., VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INS., CO., ET AL

(NOTE: This decision was approved by the court for publication.)
This case can also be found at 308 N.J. Super. 194.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
 
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
A-3106-96T1

VINCENT NORCIA, Administrator and
Administrator Ad Prosequendum of the
Estate of LIVIO A. NORCIA, deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and
NEW JERSEY AUTOMOBILE FULL INSURANCE
UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION,

Defendants-Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________

Argued: January 22, 1998 - Decided: February 13, 1998

Before Judges Baime, Wefing and Braithwaite.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, whose opinion is reported at 297 N.J. Super. 563 (Law Div. 1996).

Vincent P. Manning argued the cause for appellant (Schottland, Manning & Rosen, attorneys; Mr. Manning, of counsel; Patricia B. Adams, on the brief).

Narinder S. Parmar argued the cause for respondents (Sellar Richardson, attorneys; James P. Richardson, of counsel; Mr. Parmar, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
BRAITHWAITE, J.A.D.
Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment dismissing his complaint seeking $300,000 in uninsured motorist benefits or, in

the alternative, directing that his claim proceed to binding arbitration under the policy. On appeal plaintiff contends:

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THEREBY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM.

POINT II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY DENIED PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
We agree that the vehicle owned by the United States was not an uninsured motor vehicle and affirm that issue substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Koch in his published opinion reported at 297 N.J. Super. 563 (Law Div. 1996). We express no view on the statute of limitations issue resolved by the judge in plaintiff's favor. Defendants did not cross-appeal from that determination.
Affirmed.

- -