In the heavily divided Supreme Court decision of Voss v. Tranquilino, the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that intoxicated drivers injured in a motor vehicle accident may have a viable case against the bar which has negligently served them alcohol. The state of the law in this regard has been unclear as a result of an insurance law statute, which purports to prevent law suits being brought by intoxicated drivers when they are injured in motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, it was the widespread belief that an injured intoxicated driver would not be allowed to bring suit against a bar or liquor licensed establishment that may have negligently served him/her alcohol, and, which negligent service was the proximate cause of a motor vehicle accident and their injuries. In the Supreme Court's recent decision, they held that the insurance statute related to banning causes of action for intoxicated drivers only applies to suits that could be brought against the operators of other motor vehicles. In this regard, the court held that New Jersey's Dram Shop Statute does not prevent such suits from being filed. We do not believe that such liability would ever be imposed upon a social host setting, in that the social host liability statute is completely separate and apart from the Dram Shop liability statute. (See prior blog).

We believe that the Supreme Court's opinion is contrary to public policy, although it may be in conformance with the black letter of the statute. In this regard, we are also of the opinion that New Jerseys Legislature will ultimately address this "loophole" and prevent potential law suits by intoxicated persons against licensed establishments that may have negligently served that person alcohol. At the present time, however, such suits remain viable and will have to be dealt with by the courts of our State. These complexities and variations with each holding from the Court are why an expert attorney is needed, to sort through the detailed circumstances and series of events in your particular situation and how they may fit into the existing case law, such that your rights are protected to the fullest.

A recent flurry of commuter or tour bus accidents raises various issues with regard to passenger rights and obligations after the accident occurs. Specifically, there are issues concerning notice requirements and medical bills that a layperson may not be aware of after being involved in such an accident, but that an attorney would.

As you may know from our website or prior blogs, any time an individual is injured in a motor vehicle accident, that persons' automobile insurance coverage will be responsible to pay for that person's medical bills as long as they are reasonable and related to the motor vehicle accident. However, most, if not, all motor vehicle insurance policies will have a specific exclusion of medical bills incurred as a result of injury while you are being transported in a bus or other livery conveyance. Accordingly, if you are injured in a bus accident, it may be most prudent to attempt to have your medical bills paid by your automobile insurance carrier and, when declined, utilize your primary health insurance coverage. If you do not have health insurance, it is important to seek legal advice so that an attorney may determine whether or not the insurance coverage on the bus has policy provisions, which would pay for medical bills in the event of personal injury sustained in an accident.

In any event, should you have any questions concerning the payment of medical bills after being injured as a passenger on a bus, you should contact an attorney that has experience in personal injury and insurance coverage.

In addition to issues concerning medical bills, there may also be issues concerning notice requirements. For instance, if you are traveling on a New Jersey Transit Bus, New Jersey Transit is considered a subdivision of the State of New Jersey, and, as such, you would be entitled to place New Jersey Transit on notice within 90 days of your accident if you have sustained injuries and intend to sue.

Again, it is imperative that you contact an attorney immediately should you be involved in any accident of this sort and you suffer any sort of injury. Legal recourse presents various issues that require analysis in order to determine whether or not you are able to recover compensatory damages or coverage for medical care. Call an attorney who has the experience and the knowledge to help you get through the process.

The NJ Appellate Division recently held, in the case of Callo v. Allstate, that the plaintiff would not be able to collect on a $250,000.00 jury verdict against a co-student attacker from the attacker's parents' homeowners' insurance policy.

Generally, pursuant to New Jersey law, a homeowners' policy will not cover injuries sustained when its insured intends on causing the injury. Homeowners' policies are designed to cover injuries sustained when the insured homeowner engages in a negligent act, which results in another's injury. However, there is case law in New Jersey to suggest that coverage under a homeowner's policy of insurance will cover the unintended consequences of intentional acts. This means that if an insured intended on engaging in an act but did not intend the outcome of that act (i.e. personal injury) there may be coverage.

In this case, the defendant attacked the plaintiff while in school. After a trial, a jury entered a $250,000.00 verdict in favor of the girl who was attacked. The defendant's insurance company, Allstate Insurance, provided a defense to the attacker but refused to pay the jury's verdict. Instead, it filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration from the court that it owed no duty to pay the jury's verdict. The Appellate Division agreed with Allstate, and held that the attacker intended to cause significant injury to the plaintiff, and, as such, the verdict was not covered under the policy of insurance.

In a case such as this, discovery must be conducted of the parties in an effort to establish that the attacker did not cause the specific type of injury that was sustained by the victim. In this regard, argument can be made to the courts that the victim's injury was merely an unintended consequence of an intentional act. Accordingly, it is important to see an attorney who specializes in a personal injury law practice in the event you are injured by a purported intentional act or assault.

One of the most frequent questions we are asked by our clients in motor vehicle cases, is "Why does my insurance company have to pay my medical bills?" In this regard, clients are generally upset by the fact that the car accident may have been the other person's fault, but that their own insurance company has to "foot the bill" for their treatment. Our clients are concerned that their insurance premiums will go up because a claim is being made against their policy, even though the accident was not their fault.

In New Jersey, medical bill payment related to injuries sustained in a car accident is governed by statute, specifically NJSA 39:6A-4 et.seq. New Jersey is considered a "no-fault" state when it comes to automobile insurance. Basically, the term "no-fault" means that your own insurance pays your medical bills, regardless of fault. The purpose and reason behind "no-fault" insurance is to ensure that the injured party receives immediate and appropriate medical care, as soon as practical and possible after the car accident. Prior to New Jersey becoming a "no-fault" state, and in other states where "no-fault" doesn't exist, issues of liability often prevent an injured party from obtaining necessary and appropriate medical treatment soon after the accident. For instance, if a person is injured in a car accident in an intersection governed by a traffic light, both parties may claim that they had the green light and are blameless. Accordingly, although one party needs medical attention for their injuries soon after the accident, neither of the insurance companies would bear responsibility for that treatment until a judge or jury could determine that their client was at fault for the accident. Thus, without appropriate medical insurance in place, doctors would not be in a position to render such treatment.

Under New Jersey's "no-fault" scheme, medical treatment is available immediately after the accident because the doctors know that coverage will exist regardless of whomever is determined to be at fault. Obviously, in the event you are injured in a car accident and seek medical treatment, it is important to provide your doctor with copies of your own insurance policy information, including the name of the company, policy number and a claims telephone number, wherever possible. Of course, if your claim for medical treatment is ever declined by your insurance company, or if you are involved in a car accident at all, it is important to seek an experienced attorney who can provide you with the proper guidance, and pursue your interests to the fullest extent of the law.

A recent trend has come to our attention in the realm of motor vehicle accident settlements. More than one of our clients, upon initial consultation for personal injuries related to a motor vehicle accident, has advised us that they have received and cashed checks from the other person's motor vehicle insurance carrier prior to meeting with us. These checks are generally in the $250.00 to $500.00 range. Importantly, although our clients are being told that the small payments are being provided to them for medical co-pays and deductibles, our close review of the documentation provided with the checks has revealed that the checks are being provided in exchange for a full and final settlement of any and all personal injuries.

The clients that have approached us with these checks were shocked to find out that they may have jeopardized their right to collect full and complete compensatory damages for their pain and suffering, disability and impairment, and loss of enjoyment of life by merely receiving, acknowledging and cashing these small checks when they were specifically told by the insurance companies that the checks were being provided to them for their medical co-pays and their deductibles. In this regard, New Jersey law provides that a tortfeasor will not be responsible for any medical co-pays and/or deductibles in a motor vehicle accident. As such, it is clear to us that these insurance companies were clearly misrepresenting the facts to our clients for purposes of fraudulently entering into a settlement agreement.

Fortunately, after our involvement, a majority of the insurance companies have "backed away" from their position that the case has been settled and will allow our clients' remaining personal injury claims to go forward. More astoundingly, at least one insurance company has refused to back off their position and we are presently looking into filing suit against them and all of the insurance companies that have engaged in this practice as a result of their engaging in fraud, deceit and violation of various New Jersey statutes concerning Fair Settlement Practices.

In light of all of the above, it is especially important that, if you are involved in a motor vehicle accident, you do not sign any paperwork provided to you by the other driver's insurance company, or cash any checks provided to you by them, before speaking to a lawyer qualified in the area of personal injury litigation. While generally checks payable to body shops for property damage and checks payable directly to you for vehicles which have been totaled as a result of the accident are safe to sign and/or deposit, we suggest speaking to an attorney first.

A recent lawsuit filed in Baltimore reminds us that operators of automobiles and other vehicles on the road must recognize and be cognizant of the fact that smaller, some times hard to see vehicles share the road with us. There, a truck driver making a right hand turn struck and killed a bicyclist that was lawfully and properly using the roadway when the cyclist became entangled in the trucks rear tandem.
New Jersey's Motor Vehicle Statutes permit bicyclists to share the public roadways with the operators of motor vehicles. However, it must be pointed out that people riding bicycles upon the public roadways also have a general duty to follow the "rules of the road" and abide by roadway markings, traffic signs and signals. The failure of a cyclist to do so may be construed as negligence or an improper action by that individual that can be held against them in the event of an accident or claim for personal injuries. Further, it is conceivable that a bicyclist who fails to abide by traffic laws, signals or signs and causes a motor vehicle accident could be legally held responsible for money damages to compensate an injured party.
Another question that is raised is whether a child operating a bicycle will be required to abide by motor vehicle laws. There is not one clear answer under the law. The answer will depend on the facts of each case including the age of the child, the type of bicycle being ridden and sometimes the law of the local municipality. Generally, however, children are required to act reasonably under the circumstances for their age.
Accordingly, in light of the above, if you regularly operate a bicycle on public roadways, it may be wise to determine whether you have available insurance coverage in the event your operation of the bike causes an accident and either property damages or personal injuries. Most, if not, all automobile insurance policies exclude coverage for injuries or damages unless they are caused by the operation of a motor vehicle. Bicycles would be excluded. Homeowners' policies, if you have one, differ widely on the subject but may provide coverage for "vehicles powered by human means." To be definitive in this regard, you should contact your insurance agent and change your coverage if you believe you require it.