GUARO SOLANO, TANGELA MOORE et al. v. NEW JERSEY PROPERTY-LIABILITY INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1471-05T21471-05T2

GUARO SOLANO, TANGELA MOORE

and LISA ORTIZ,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

NEW JERSEY PROPERTY-LIABILITY

INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION,

Statutory Administrator of the

UNSATISFIED CLAIM AND JUDGMENT

FUND,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________

 

Submitted July 19, 2006 - Decided August 11, 2006

Before Judges Fuentes and Graves.

On appeal from Superior Court of

New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic

County, Docket No. L-258-04.

Burke & Potenza, attorneys for appellant

(John Burke and Benjamin Justus, on

the brief).

Michael D. Russo, III, attorney for

respondent.

PER CURIAM

This appeal requires us to determine two questions: (1) whether an individual who purchased a "basic policy" of automobile insurance, as defined in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-3.1, that did not contain optional uninsured motorists ("UM") coverage, is eligible to receive benefits from the New Jersey Property Liability Insurance Guaranty Association ("PLIGA"), the statutory administrator of the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund ("UCJF"), for injuries sustained in an automobile accident with a stolen car; and (2) whether the passengers in the car of this individual are also eligible to receive benefits from PLIGA/UCJF. The trial court answered both of these questions in the affirmative. After reviewing the record before us, and in light of applicable legal standards, we agree with the court's conclusions and affirm.

The salient facts are straight forward and undisputed. On September 15, 2002, Moore was the owner and driver of the car in which Guaro and Solano were passengers. Moore's vehicle was struck by a car owned by Cesar Diaz. The driver of Diaz's car fled the scene of the accident and was never identified. On September 4, 2002, eleven days before the accident, Diaz reported his car stolen to the Paterson Police Department. On the day of the accident, the vehicle owned and operated by Moore was insured under a basic policy issued by Allstate Insurance Company that did not afford UM coverage.

On motions for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that PLIGA/UCJF was obligated to compensate plaintiffs. The court thereafter entered judgment against PLIGA and in favor of plaintiffs as follows: (1) $7,500 as to Guaro Solano; (2) $12,000 as to Lisa Ortiz; and (3) $2,500 as to Tangela Moore.

In reviewing a matter on summary judgment, we will apply the same standards applicable in the trial court. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 536-37 (1995); Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Boylan, 307 N.J. Super. 162, 167 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 154 N.J. 608 (1998); R. 4:46-2(c). Here, because the judgment presented for our review involved purely legal determinations, we owe no special deference to the trial court's analysis and ultimate legal conclusions. State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 419 (2004), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 2973, 162 L. Ed. 2d 898 (2005).

In 1998, the Legislature adopted the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act ("AICRA"), as a response to

[t]he high cost of automobile insurance in New Jersey [which] has presented a significant problem for many-lower income residents of the state, many of whom have been forced to drop or lapse their coverage in violation of the State's mandatory motor vehicle insurance laws, making it necessary to provide a lower-cost option to protect people by providing coverage to pay their medical expenses if they are injured. . . .

[N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1.1b.]

In addition to other reforms involving the prosecution of claims subject to the verbal threshold limitations, the Legislature created "two insurance coverage options, a basic policy and a standard policy." Ibid. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-3.1 describes in detail the coverage features, both mandatory and optional, of the "basic policy." By way of summary, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-3.1a requires the "basic policy" to provide a limited version of Personal Injury Protection ("PIP"). N.J.S.A. 39:6A-3.1c, however, provides a person purchasing a "basic policy" with the option of including

liability insurance coverage insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death in an amount or limit of $10,000, exclusive of interests and costs, on account of injury to, or death of, one or more persons in any one accident.

Here, Moore's "basic policy" did not contain this additional optional coverage.

In adopting AICRA, the Legislature also amended N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1, expressly exempting "basic policies" from the requirement of providing UM and underinsured ("UIM") coverage. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1a. As a final manifestation of its intent, the Legislature declared that "'Uninsured motor vehicle' shall not include an automobile covered by a basic automobile insurance policy. . . ." N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1e(2)(d) (emphasis added).

Our Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed the purpose of the PLIGA/UCJF providing that, "The [PLIGA/]UCJF was enacted to provide 'a measure of relief for persons who sustain losses or injury inflicted by financially irresponsible or unidentified owners or operators of motor vehicles, where such persons would otherwise be remediless.'" Caballero v. Martinez, 186 N.J. 548, 555-56 (2006) (quoting Shaw v. City of Jersey City, 174 N.J. 567, 572 (2002)).

Here, these paramount public policy considerations were the driving force behind Judge De Luccia's determination. As he correctly noted:

Using that definition, Solano and Ortiz fit squarely within that definition. They have no recourse against anyone. This is a liability accident in which the host driver is obviously not at fault. Even if the host driver was at fault, she has no coverage.

The question then involved is, where can these individuals go for their compensation, if at all? See, [PLIGA/UCFJ] was created to present a situation in which there would be no coverage in situations like this. It is inconceivable to me that the Legislature would have contemplated disenfranchising as it were this crowded area of victims, people such as Ortiz and Solano, by making them bound by selections that were made by the host driver, selections over which they had no participation and, perhaps, probably, more likely than not, had no knowledge.

The statutory scheme governing the eligibility for benefits from the PLIGA/UCJF also supports Judge De Luccia's conclusion. To be eligible to receive benefits an individual must be a "qualified person," as that term is defined in N.J.S.A. 39:6-62. Of relevance here, "no person shall be a qualified person where such person is an insured under a policy provision providing coverage for damages sustained by the insured as a result of the operation of an uninsured motor vehicle." Ibid. (emphasis added). The definition of "Uninsured motor vehicle" specifically excludes, however, "a motor vehicle with a policy in force which is insured pursuant to [N.J.S.A. 39:6A-3.1]." Ibid. Once plaintiffs are determined to fall within the definition of "qualified persons," they are entitled to recover benefits from PLIGA/UCJF as victims of a hit and run accident. N.J.S.A. 39:6-78.

Following the same logical path, we are also in complete agreement with Judge De Luccia's determination that Moore also falls within the class of "qualified persons," and is therefore not barred from seeking relief from PLIGA/UCJF. Moore finds herself without UM coverage, not through some act of negligence or as an attempt to avoid her responsibilities as a motorist in this State, but by purchasing a policy of insurance expressly sanctioned by law. We are satisfied that this scenario was contemplated and addressed by the Legislature when it created the "basic policy" as one of the cost reduction features of AICRA.

The judgment of the Law Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons articulated by Judge De Luccia in his oral opinions delivered from the bench on July 20, and 28, 2005.

Affirmed.

 

See DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005).

(continued)

(continued)

7

A-1471-05T2

August 11, 2006