delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this appeal, we must determine whether the amount of insurance coverage available in a commercial automobile policy, in which the exclusion for loading and unloading activities was void as contrary to the omnibus automobilе státute, is the statutory minimum or the policy limit. The trial court found that the full policy limit applied. On appeal, relying on our decision in
Proformance Insurance Co. v. Jones,
185
N.J.
406,
I.
Plaintiff, Gary Potenzone, an Apollo Flag Company (Apollo Flag) employee, was standing near an Apollo Flag truck while supervising the loading operations when defendant Le Tran, an employee of defendant Annin Flag Company (collectively Annin Flag), struck Pоtenzone in the back with either the forklift or a pallet on the forklift. As a result, Potenzone filed a personal injury action for bodily injury against Annin Flag. Annin Flag was insured by Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company (Atlantic Mutual) with policy limits of one million dollars. Annin Flag also sоught coverage from Apollo Flag’s business automobile insurance policy issued by third-party defendant Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (Penn National) with policy limits of $500,000. *150 Penn National denied coverage to Annin Flag under its policy exclusion for injuries arising out of loading or unloading accidents to Apollo Flag, its employees, or persons who operate Apollo Flag vehicles with permission.
Annin Flag filed a third-party complaint against Penn National, seeking a deсlaration that Penn National had a duty to defend and indemnify it against Potenzone’s lawsuit. Penn National filed an answer denying that it owed any duty to provide coverage. Annin Flag and Penn National each sought summary judgment. Penn National also sought alternаtive relief requesting that if it owed coverage to Annin Flag, its liability limit was the statutory minimum of $15,000 as required by N.J.S.A. 39:6B-l(a) and not the $500,000 face value of the policy. The trial court granted Annin Flag’s motion for summary judgment and required Penn National to provide coverage up to its full policy limit of $500,000.
The Appellate Division granted Penn National’s motion for leave to appeal. Around the same time, Potenzone settled his personal injury claim against Annin Flag for $850,000. Penn National agreed to pay $500,000, and Atlantic Mutuаl agreed to pay the balance of $350,000. However, the settlement agreement also directed that, in the event Penn National was successful in its appeal seeking to limit its liability to the statutory minimum, Penn National could then seek reimbursement from Atlantic Mutual for the amount it paid in excess of $15,000.
The sole issue on appeal was whether Penn National’s insurance coverage should be limited to the statutory minimum or extended to the face amount of its insurance policy.
Potenzone, supra,
388
N.J.Super.
at 307,
II.
Annin Flag argues that Penn National’s coverage obligation for accidents arising out of loading or unloading operations is the contractual amount stated in the insurance policy. It contends that the Court’s decision in Profonnance is not applicable and should be limited to only those cases where an innocent third party will be left with no remedy because an insurer properly denied liability coverage due to the misconduct of an insured. Annin Flag asserts that it would be unreasonable to permit Penn Nationаl to rely on an obviously invalid loading and unloading exclusion to reduce its contractual coverage obligation to the statutory minimum amount of $15,000. Annin Flag adds that it would thwart the public policy goals of the Legislature if insurers could vastly limit their coverаge by including invalid policy exclusions that would cause the policy limits to be deemed reduced to the statutory minimum, irrespective of what the insured paid for the policy. Finally, Annin Flag notes that other Appellate Division decisions, which it claims hаve been cited with approval by this Court, involving invalid loading and unloading exclusions, have enforced the policy terms, rather than limited the liability coverage to the statutory minimum.
In contrast, Penn National argues that the decision in Proformance settled the issue and that its coverage should be limited to the statutory minimum bеcause the loading and unloading exclusion was invalid. In response to Annin Flag’s argument that Profonnance should be limited to cases in which an innocent party is denied coverage as a result of the insured’s misconduct, Penn National claims that the same outcome would have resulted in that case even if the named insured in Profonnance had given permission to the additional insured to use the vehicle in his business. Further, Penn National contends that Profonnance should be *152 interpreted to conclude that insurers can properly deny coverage for an otherwise covered use as long as that denial still requires coverage for the statutory minimum. Finally, Penn National asserts that the decision below is not in conflict with other Appellate Division decisions or with decisions of this Court.
III.
A.
Every owner of an automobile registered in New Jersey must have liability insurance coverage.
N.J.S.A
39:6B-l(a). Insurers must afford that liability insurance coverage at no less than the minimum amounts set forth by the Legislature.
Proformance, supra,
185
N.J.
at 415,
We have noted that New Jersey’s statutory scheme evinces a strong legislative policy in favor of protecting innocent accident victims.
Gazis v. Miller,
186
N.J.
224, 231-32,
B.
Our courts have long recognized “that the obligation to provide coverage in a loading and unloading accident arises from statute
*153
and therefore cannot be limited by contract.”
Ryder/P.I.E. Nationwide, Inc. v. Harbor Bay Corp.,
119
N.J.
402, 407,
On appeal, we approved of the holding in Bellafronte and stated that:
Bellafronte makes dear the broad scope of coverage that an insurer must provide for accidents arising during loading and unloading. Because of statutorily-imposed omnibus requirements, аny contractual attempt to exclude coverage for an additional insured will be held invalid. Moreover, all parties subject to omnibus coverage requirements — both self-insurers and those with liability policies — must provide coverage. What Bellafronte does not address, however, is the limitation, if any, on the amount of coverage that an insurer must provide in the context of a loading and unloading acddent.
[Id. at 408, 575 A.2d 416 (emphasis omitted).]
In deciding the amount of coverage issue left unanswered in
Bellafronte,
we stated that “[ujnder the terms of an ordinary liability policy, an insurer would be required to provide coverage in a loading and unloading accident to the limits of its policy— often an amount greater than the statutory minimum.”
Id.
at 413,
In the present matter, the Pеnn National insurance policy provides liability coverage to “an insured” who becomes legally obligated to pay damages as a result of a “bodily injury ... caused by an accident and resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use оf a covered auto.” (Internal quotation marks omitted). An “insured” is defined, in part, as anyone using a covered automobile with Apollo Flag’s permission, except “[a]nyone other than [Apollo Flag’s] employees, partners, ... or a lessеe or borrower or any of [its] employees,
while moving property to or from a covered auto.”
(Emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). Penn National conceded that its “while moving property to or from a covered auto” language carved out an exception for loading and unloading operations. Initially, Penn National contended that under the definition of an insured in its loading and unloading exclusion, Annin Flag was not covered because it was not an employee, lessee, or borrower of Apollo Flag’s vеhicle and, therefore, Annin Flag was not entitled to insurance coverage for Potenzone’s claim. However, Penn National later conceded that its “while moving property” exception to the definition of insured was not enforceable due to New Jersey “law requiring coverage for so-called loading and unloading activities.”
Potenzone, supra,
388
N.J.Super.
at 306,
In
Ryder, supra,
we stated that an “insurer would be required to provide coverage in a loading and unloading accident to the limits of its policy.” 119
N.J.
at 413,
*155
Our courts have made it clear that a policy exclusion may not override statutory mandates to provide insurance coverage and the attempt to do so in a loading and unloading accident is vоid.
Ryder, supra,
119
N.J.
at 407,
We recognize that one could fairly read our decision in
Proformance
to reach a different result in this matter. However, in
Proformance, supra,
we addressed for the first time whether, in light of the omnibus statute, an otherwise valid business exсlusion should bar a third party from coverage under the policy. 185
N.J.
at 410,
We choose a different path here. Following our decision in
Ryder,
insureds, insurers, and self-insurers should have reasonably expected that the full policy limit for an accident during a loading or unloading operation was required. As stated earlier, the insurance industry has had ample time to adjust its rates and policy terms.
Ryder, supra,
119
N.J.
at 413,
IV.
We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.
Opposed — None.