DENISE DUNCOMBE v. GEORGE JOHNS, HARSEN & JOHNS ARCHITECTS

(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2435-04T12435-04T1

DENISE DUNCOMBE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GEORGE JOHNS, HARSEN & JOHNS

ARCHITECTS,

Defendant-Respondent.

______________________________

 

Submitted November 1, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Collester and Lisa.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Essex County, L-2511-03.

Nicholas A. Mattera, attorney for appellant.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Denise Duncombe appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissal of her personal injury complaint for failure to satisfy the limitation on lawsuit threshold of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a). At the motion hearing it was conceded that plaintiff satisfied the objective prong of Oswin v. Shaw, 129 N.J. 290, 307 (1992), in that she suffered a permanent injury. However, the judge held that plaintiff's injuries were not sufficiently serious to meet the subjective prong requiring that the injury suffered has and will have a serious impact on her personal and occupational life. Oswin, supra, 129 N.J. at 318.

During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court held in DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005), and Serrano v. Serrano, 183 N.J. 508 (2005), that under the verbal threshold as amended by the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act of 1998 (AICRA), an injured plaintiff need only prove that she sustained a permanent injury as defined in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a) and does not have to meet the additional burden of proving a serious impact upon her life in order to satisfy the verbal threshold permitting a jury to resolve her claim for non-economic damages.

 
Accordingly, we reverse the entry of summary judgment and remand the matter for trial.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-2435-04T1

January 12, 2006