Estate of Ryan v. LCS, Inc.

SYLLABUS
 

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).

Marie K. Ryan and Thomas R. Ryan, etc. v. LCS, Inc., et al. (A-14-98)

 
(NOTE: The Court wrote no full opinion in this case. Rather, the Court's affirmance of the judgment of the Appellate Division is based substantially on the reasons expressed in the opinion below.)
 
Argued February 17, 1999 -- Decided March 3, 1999

PER CURIAM

In this case, the Court considers the viability of a claim filed by the parents of a victim killed by the driver of a stolen car against the driver's auto insurance liability insurer.

On August 31, 1991, defendant, Donald Davison, Jr. (Davison), after taking barbiturates and drinking alcoholic beverages at D'Jais Bar, hot wired and stole a car. While driving that car at a high rate of speed down 11th Avenue in Bellmar, Davison disregarded a stop sign, and broadsided a car in which the Ryans' son was a passenger. The son and the driver of the car in which he was a passenger were killed as a result of the collision. Davison subsequently pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter and theft and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twenty years.

After settling their complaint against Davison and D'Jais, the Ryans filed suit against TIG, the automobile insurance carrier for Davison's father, with whom Davison was residing at the time of the accident. TIG's policy excluded coverage for any person. . . using a vehicle without reasonable belief that that person is entitled to do so. TIG subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court.

In a published opinion, the Appellate Division concluded that the exclusionary clause contained in the TIG policy applied to any person who is using a vehicle without permission, whether that person is an insured or not. Furthermore, the Appellate Division determined that the term any vehicle meant any vehicle being used without permission, whether or not the vehicle was an insured vehicle under a policy also covering the driver as a member of the insured's household. The Appellate Division therefore held that the TIG policy did not cover anyone, including an insured or family member, so long as such person was driving a vehicle without permission.

In reaching its decision, the Appellate Division specifically found that there was no material issue of fact as to Davison's state of mind, and that although he was intoxicated and under the influence of drugs, he still had enough savvy to hot wire someone's car. In addition, his state of mind was sufficient to justify his guilty plea on two counts of theft. Thus, the Appellate Division concluded, no rational fact finder could conclude that Davison reasonably believed he had permission to do what he did.

HELD: Judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the Appellate Division's reported decision. Because Davison lacked a reasonable belief that he had a right to use the vehicle he stole, his parent's automobile insurance policy provided no liability coverage, and judgment was properly entered in TIG's behalf.

CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN , GARIBALDI, STEIN, and COLEMAN join in this PER CURIAM opinion.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
A- 14 September Term 1998
 

MARIE K. RYAN and THOMAS R. RYAN, Co-Administrators and Administrators Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of DANIEL J. RYAN, deceased,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

LCS, INC., t/a D'JAIS, and DONALD DAVISON, JR.,

Defendants,

and

TIG INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Respondent.

Argued February 17, 1999 -- Decided March 3, 1999

On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 311 N.J. Super. 618 (1998).

Kenneth L. Thomson argued the cause for appellants (Schottland, Manning, Rosen, Caliendo & Munson, attorneys).

Jay Lavroff argued the cause for respondent (Lindabury, McCormick & Estabrook, attorneys).

PER CURIAM
The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Kimmelman's opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 311 N.J. Super. 618 (1998).
 
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, and COLEMAN join in this opinion.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
 

NO. A-14

SEPTEMBER TERM 1998
ON APPEAL FROM
ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court

MARIE K. RYAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

LCS, INC., etc., et al.,

Defendants,

and

TIG INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Respondent.

DECIDED

March 3, 1999
Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING
OPINION BY PER CURIAM
CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY
CHECKLIST
AFFIRM CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ X JUSTICE HANDLER X JUSTICE POLLOCK X JUSTICE O'HERN X JUSTICE GARIBALDI X JUSTICE STEIN X JUSTICE COLEMAN X TOTALS
7