Perrelli v. Pastorelle
206 N.J. 193
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Perrelli was injured as a passenger in an uninsured vehicle driven by Velverde when her car collided with the Pastorelles' car on the Garden State Parkway in 2006.
- Perrelli’s NJM policy for the 1992 Oldsmobile Cutlass was cancelled for non-payment on August 4, 2006, prior to the accident.
- Perrelli’s premium payments had lapsed; she couldn't recall if NJM was properly notified of her last address change and last payments.
- Perrelli filed a complaint in 2008 alleging negligence by the Pastorelles, seeking economic and noneconomic damages.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(a) bars such a claim by an uninsured vehicle owner/occupant; the trial court and Appellate Division denied, but the Supreme Court granted review.
- The Court held that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(a) bars the action and dismissed the complaint against Perrelli.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(a) bars recovery when injured while a passenger in an uninsured vehicle | Perrelli contends the bar applies only if she was operating the uninsured vehicle | Pastoralles argue the bar applies regardless of driving status since the vehicle is uninsured | Yes, bar applies; the owner of an uninsured vehicle is barred regardless of being driver or passenger |
| Whether the term 'while operating' requires actual driving by the plaintiff | Literal interpretation would require plaintiff to be driving | Statute aims to deter uninsured operation; broad interpretation acceptable | No; court adopts broad interpretation consistent with legislative intent, extending bar to owners/occupants when involved with uninsured vehicle |
| Whether statutory purpose of No Fault Act supports a broad application of 4.5(a) to all uninsured-vehicle scenarios | Statutory language should be read literally to limit bar to driving uninsured vehicle | No Fault Act objectives require deterring use of uninsured vehicles and preserving insurance pool | Yes; legislative intent to reduce costs and fraud supports broad application of the bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Caviglia v. Royal Tours of America, 178 N.J. 460 (2004) (No Fault Act objectives; uninsured owner must not recover to keep insurance costs down)
- Dziuba v. Fletcher, 188 N.J. 339 (2006) (uninsured vehicle must be involved for noneconomic damages bar; owner may be barred from PIP if uninsured; applicability to third-party noneconomic damages)
- Gibson v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 261 N.J. Super. 579 (App.Div.1993) (owner/registrant without PIP can be barred; relevance to uninsured status)
- Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hyman, 334 N.J. Super. 400 (Law Div.2000) (precludes PIP benefits when owner/registrant uninsured at time of accident)
- Walcott v. Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co., 376 N.J. Super. 384 (App.Div.2005) (no basis to extend 4.5(a) to drunk drivers for PIP; related statutory interpretation)