From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marotta v. Auto. Ins. Underwrit

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jun 11, 1996
676 A.2d 1064 (N.J. 1996)

Summary

holding third party coverage under void policy is restricted to minimum limits required by compulsory insurance law requirements

Summary of this case from Palisades Safety Ins. v. Bastien

Opinion

Argued April 30, 1996 —

Decided June 11, 1996.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Eric S. Plaum argued the cause for appellant.

Laurie Harrold Rozzo argued the cause for respondent ( Slimm Goldberg, attorneys).


The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 280 N.J. Super. 525, 656 A.2d 20 (1995).

For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN and COLEMAN — 7.

Opposed — None.


Summaries of

Marotta v. Auto. Ins. Underwrit

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jun 11, 1996
676 A.2d 1064 (N.J. 1996)

holding third party coverage under void policy is restricted to minimum limits required by compulsory insurance law requirements

Summary of this case from Palisades Safety Ins. v. Bastien
Case details for

Marotta v. Auto. Ins. Underwrit

Case Details

Full title:CONCETTA MAROTTA, PLAINTIFF, v. NEW JERSEY AUTOMOBILE FULL INSURANCE…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Jun 11, 1996

Citations

676 A.2d 1064 (N.J. 1996)
676 A.2d 1064

Citing Cases

Csap v. Am. Millennium Ins. Co.

Because New Jersey mandates auto insurance coverage, innocent third parties who use the roadways can…

Palisades Safety Ins. v. Bastien

The action also sought to limit LaRoche's third-party PIP benefits to the statutory minimum. See Marotta v.…