A man who lives in New Jersey but kept his car registeredand insured in Florida may not sue another New Jersey driver forinjuries he sustained in a car accident, a judge has ruled.

Related: When it comes to auto policies, where vehicle isgaraged matters more than you think

Essex County Superior Court Judge Patrick Bartels dismissedplaintiff Jeffrey Scholes’ personal injury lawsuit againstdefendant Stephen Hausmann on Oct. 24.

Fraudulently maintained Fla. auto policy

Bartels ruled that it would violate the state’s automobileinsurance statutes to permit Scholes to pursue a claim againstHausmann when he fraudulently maintained a Florida automobileinsurance policy while living in New Jersey.

“By any definition, plaintiff was a New Jersey resident,”Bartels said.

According to the ruling, Scholes was “severely injured” when hiscar was struck by Hausmann’s on Oct. 23, 2014, in South Orange.Scholes was driving north on Academy Street in South Orange when,according to the lawsuit, he was struck head-on by Haumann’scar.

Scholes, the lawsuit said, sustained back injuries that requiredepidural injections and surgery.

Lived & worked in N.J. since 2009

Bartels, however, noted that Scholes had been living and working inNew Jersey since 2009, and kept his car here. Nevertheless, becauseit was more cost-effective, Scholes maintained a Florida insurancepolicy issued by GEICO, registered his car there and had a Floridadriver’s license.

Hausmann moved to have Scholes’ lawsuit dismissed on the groundsthat New Jersey law requires that people who live in the state andwho have a car here must maintain New Jersey car insurance.

Related: Fighting auto insurance fraud

Bartels agreed. “[W]e agree that plaintiff’s automobile is notconsidered insured pursuant to New Jersey law,” he said.

Scholes had argued that he “technically” had car insurance andthat New Jersey’s statutes were only meant to bar injured driversfrom suing if they had no insurance themselves.

Violation of state's insurance fraud law

Bartels disagreed, and noted that Scholes had technically committeda crime in violation of the state’s insurance fraud statute.

“The defendant argues that this statute was specifically revisedto prevent reverse rate evasion, which occurs when New Jerseyresidents or those who principally garage their car in New Jerseyseek to obtain cheaper insurance from another state,” Bartelssaid.

Related: Personal auto policies: 5 questions agents shouldask buyers

“This illegal conduct is exactly what plaintiff admitted todoing in the instant case,” the judge said. Scholes, the rulingsaid, testified during a deposition that he never sought toobtain insurance in New Jersey because it would be tooexpensive.

To allow Scholes to sue Hausmann would “undermine the purposeand policy” of the statutes, and “completely eviscerate” them,Bartels said.

Ruling being appealed

Michael Maggiano, of Maggiano, DiGirolamo & Lizzi, representedScholes. He maintains that that Scholes had insurance and should beafforded coverage.

Bartels’ ruling is currently being appealed, according to anemail from Holden.

Michael Booth is the Trenton Bureau Chief for the NewJersey Law Journal. You can contact him at [email protected].