The New Jersey Supreme Court struck down an appellate court's ruling that would have expanded the uninsured motorist statute to cover injuries incurred during a drive-by shooting.

The case involved an Irvington, N.J., resident who was shot in an alleged drive-by shooting in 2005. The victim, Camie Livsey, filed an uninsured motorist claim with her auto insurance carrier, Mercury Insurance Group, after the shooting.

A trial court dismissed the claim after concluding that uninsured motorist coverage does not extend to victims of a drive-by shooting. The court explained that an individual who seeks uninsured motorist benefits must satisfy a two-pronged test that injuries are the result of an automobile accident and that the accident was caused by ownership, maintenance, or operation by an uninsured vehicle.

An appellate division reversed the finding, setting the stage for the state Supreme Court's decision. The court reversed the appellate court's ruling, saying the court could not equate personal injury protection with uninsured motorist coverage. The Supreme Court stated there are fundamental differences between the two statutes.

The Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) along with other trade groups filed an amicus brief in the matter.

Richard Stokes, regional manager and counsel for PCI, said in a prepared statement: "The Supreme Court's ruling places appropriate limits on the scope of uninsured motorist coverage. While this was an unfortunate incident, the expansion of coverage beyond what is allowed for under the contract would be harmful for consumers. Forcing insurers to ignore contract language could result in higher costs for all consumers."

Special Reports /

N.J. Court: Auto Insurance Does Not Cover Drive-By Shootings

Related Stories

Recommended For You