MARYANN COGLIANO v. JONATHAN W. SEGUINE, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0216-04T30216-04T3

MARYANN COGLIANO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JONATHAN W. SEGUINE, RICHARD

M. SEGUINE, and STATE FARM

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants-Respondents.

_________________________________________________

 

Argued November 30, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Stern and Parker.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Morris County,

Docket No.L-207-03.

Robert Kobin argued the cause for appellant

(Nusbaum, Stein, Goldstein, Bronstein &

Kron, attorneys; Susan B. Reed, on the brief).

Alan R. Lebowitz argued the cause for respondents

Jonathan W. Seguine and Richard M. Seguine

(Maloof, Lebowitz, Connahan & Oleske, attorneys;

Mr. Lebowitz, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from an order of July 29, 2004, dismissing her complaint for failure to satisfy the verbal threshold under the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act (AICRA), N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a). In her brief before us, she argues "the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment" and that "the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff had to establish a serious impact upon her life in order to meet the verbal threshold." We agree that the issue of serious life impact is irrelevant in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005), decided after summary judgment was granted in this case.

In deciding this case, the motion judge made a handwritten notation on the order granting summary judgment which states that "[plaintiff's] complaint that she doesn't exercise 'the way she used to,' does not detail [illegible] difficulty with housework [and] not being able to drive long distances does not meet the second prong of Oswin." Despite the defendant's argument that "plaintiff does not meet either the serious injury or serious impact upon her life tests," the judge did not reach the question of whether plaintiff submitted objective medical evidence of a permanent injury sufficient to withstand summary judgment.

The order under review is reversed in light of DiProspero, supra, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion including reconsideration of defendants' motion for summary judgment.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0216-04T3

December 9, 2005