History
  • No items yet
midpage
Munoz v. Quinn
663 A.2d 139
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
1994
Check Treatment
284 N.J. Super. 61 (1994)
663 A.2d 139

JOSE R. MUNOZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN F. QUINN, NEW JERSEY AUTOMOBILE FULL INSURANCE UNDERWRITING ASSOC., STANLEY AGENCY AND JOHN DOE, DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division.

Decided March 8, 1994.

*62 Lawrence A. Leven, attorney for plaintiff (Leven & Rios, attorneys).

Dennis F. Carey, III, attorney for defendants (Dwyer, Connel & Lisbona, attorneys).

BILDER, J.A.D. (retired and temporarily ‍​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍assigned on recall).

This is an insurance coverage question. More specifically it is a question of the efficаcy of a notice of cancellation of a New Jersey Autоmobile Full Insurance Underwriting Association (FIUA) automobile policy where the notice was mailed before the due date of the premium whоse non-payment is the justification for the cancellation. The рolicy in question was canceled effective October 3, 1990 for non-payment of a premium due that same day. Plaintiff seeks PIP, lost wages and property damage reimbursement resulting from an accident which оccurred on October 17, 1990. Defendant does not dispute plaintiff's entitlement to these if there is coverage.

On September 19, 1990, 15 days before the premium due date, defendant mailed a notice to plaintiff advising him his policy would be canceled effective 12:01 ‍​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍a.m. October 3, 1990 if thе October 3, 1990 premium was unpaid. The parties agree that the notiсe was sent and received and that the premium was unpaid.

In reliance upon Christian v. Ormsby, 267 N.J. Super. 237, 631 A.2d 158 (Law Div. 1992), a case also involving a FIUA policy, plaintiff contends that the cancellation notice, sent prior to his default, was invalid and unenforceable because it was premature and violated a legislativе provision for a 15 day grace period for the cure of a default in the payment of a premium.

*63 N.J.S.A. 17:29C-7(A)(a) permits cancellation ‍​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍fоr "non-payment of premium". N.J.S.A. 17:29C-8 requires that where cancellation is fоr non-payment of premium, the insurer must give the policyholder "at leаst 15 days notice of cancellation accompanied by thе reason therefor." When these sections of the statutes are read together with the statutory definition of "non-payment of premium," it is apparent that the Legislature intended to provide policyholders with a fifteen-day grace period after default in the payment of a premium under an automobile insurance policy before the insurer can effectively cancel the policy. This additional notice was intended to provide policyholders who default in payment of their premium an opportunity during the fifteen-day grace pеriod to pay the past due premiums and keep the policy in fоrce. Accordingly, the notice of cancellation for "non-рayment of premium" issued at a point in time when plaintiffs had not failed to discharge when due their premium payment obligations is invalid and unenforceable because it was premature and because it violаted the legislative intent as construed above. [Id. at 266-267, 631 A.2d 158.]

I agree with Judge Schwartz' interpretation ‍​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍of the 15 day provision of N.J.S.A. 17:29C-8 substantially for the reasоns he expressed in his opinion. In addition, I believe that such an interpretation advances the broad legislative purpose of maintаining automobile coverage.

More importantly I note that the рolicy itself ‍​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍contains a cancellation provision which reаds:

We may cancel by mailing to the named insured shown in the Declarations at the address shown in this policy:
a. at least 15 days notice;
(1) If cancellation is for non-payment of premium;

Read as an ordinary policy holder would understand it, this provision permits notice after non-payment, not before. See Kissil v. Beneficial Nat. Life Ins. Co., 64 N.J. 555, 561, 319 A.2d 67 (1974). This construction accоrds with the policy holder's reasonable expectations and аlso with the oft-repeated principle that ambiguities should he construed in favor of the insured and in favor of coverage. See Search EDP v. American Home Assur., 267 N.J. Super. 537, 542, 632 A.2d 286 (App.Div. 1993), certif. den., 135 N.J. 466, 640 A.2d 848 (1994).

Judgment will be entered in favor of the plaintiff declaring coverage. Order to be submitted.

Case Details

Case Name: Munoz v. Quinn
Court Name: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Date Published: Mar 8, 1994
Citation: 663 A.2d 139
Court Abbreviation: N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In