Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
61 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2026 9 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Longworth v. Van Houtengreen2 sentences2010We further hold that UIM carriers may, if they choose, honor demands from their insureds to proceed to arbitration of the UIM claim prior to disposition of the claim against the tortfeasor. [ Id. at 194-95, 538 A. 2d 414 .] The Supreme Court endorsed that procedure in Vassas, supra, 139 N.J. at 171 , 652 A. 2d 162 . 2010We further hold that UIM carriers may, if they choose, honor demands from their insureds to proceed to arbitration of the UIM claim prior to disposition of the claim against the tortfeasor. [ Id. at 194-95, 538 A. 2d 414 .] The Supreme Court endorsed that procedure in Vassas, supra, 139 N.J. at 171 , 652 A. 2d 162 . | 5 | 15 |
Ferrante v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Grp.green2 sentences2023Although the Vassas Court held the insured's failure to comply with the provisions of his insurance contract "bar[red] his action to recover UIM benefits from [his insurer]" and the insured "unfairly prejudiced [the insurer's] subrogation right against [the tortfeasor]" contrary to the requirements of his insurance policy, 139 N.J. at 165, 176 , Ferrante held that prejudice to the UIM carrier need not be weighed in the analysis of whether a UIM claim is barred where an insured "could have, should have, but did not" notify the carrier as required under Longworth. 232 N.J. at 474 . 2023Although the Vassas Court held the insured's failure to comply with the provisions of his insurance contract "bar[red] his action to recover UIM benefits from [his insurer]" and the insured "unfairly prejudiced [the insurer's] subrogation right against [the tortfeasor]" contrary to the requirements of his insurance policy, 139 N.J. at 165, 176 , Ferrante held that prejudice to the UIM carrier need not be weighed in the analysis of whether a UIM claim is barred where an insured "could have, should have, but did not" notify the carrier as required under Longworth. 232 N.J. at 474 . | 3 | 6 |
Les Moise, Inc. v. Rossignol Ski Co., Inc.green2 sentences2008A cause of action accrues because "there exists a claim capable of present enforcement." [ Id. at 352 , 676 A. 2d 1074 (quoting Les Moise, Inc. v. Rossignol Ski Co., 122 Wis. 2d 51 , 361 N.W. 2d 653, 656 (1985)).] Thus, the factual circumstances here are distinguishable and were expressly anticipated as such in the rationale the Court expressed in Green . 2008A cause of action accrues because "there exists a claim capable of present enforcement." [ Id. at 352 , 676 A. 2d 1074 (quoting Les Moise, Inc. v. Rossignol Ski Co., 122 Wis. 2d 51 , 361 N.W. 2d 653, 656 (1985)).] Thus, the factual circumstances here are distinguishable and were expressly anticipated as such in the rationale the Court expressed in Green . | 3 | 3 |
Rutgers Casualty Insurance v. Vassasgreen2 sentences2023Although the Vassas Court held the insured's failure to comply with the provisions of his insurance contract "bar[red] his action to recover UIM benefits from [his insurer]" and the insured "unfairly prejudiced [the insurer's] subrogation right against [the tortfeasor]" contrary to the requirements of his insurance policy, 139 N.J. at 165, 176 , Ferrante held that prejudice to the UIM carrier need not be weighed in the analysis of whether a UIM claim is barred where an insured "could have, should have, but did not" notify the carrier as required under Longworth. 232 N.J. at 474 . 2023Although the Vassas Court held the insured's failure to comply with the provisions of his insurance contract "bar[red] his action to recover UIM benefits from [his insurer]" and the insured "unfairly prejudiced [the insurer's] subrogation right against [the tortfeasor]" contrary to the requirements of his insurance policy, 139 N.J. at 165, 176 , Ferrante held that prejudice to the UIM carrier need not be weighed in the analysis of whether a UIM claim is barred where an insured "could have, should have, but did not" notify the carrier as required under Longworth. 232 N.J. at 474 . | 2 | 7 |
Breitenbach v. Motor Club of Am. Ins. Co.green2 sentences2007Breitenbach, supra, 295 N.J.Super. at 330, 685 A. 2d 36 . 1998Thus, although he settled with the tortfeasor, plaintiff can also pursue his UIM claim against the carrier. [Id. at 334-35, 685 A.2d 36 (citation omitted).] Applying the Breitenbach reasoning to the unique facts here, we conclude defendant must provide plaintiff with UIM arbitration. | 2 | 3 |
Green v. Selective Insurance Co. of Americagreen2 sentences2001Co. of America, 144 N.J. 344, 351-353 , 676 A. 2d 1074 (1996), plaintiffs had six years from the date of the accident to commence their UIM claim. 2001Co. of America, 144 N.J. 344, 351-353 , 676 A. 2d 1074 (1996), plaintiffs had six years from the date of the accident to commence their UIM claim. | 1 | 4 |
Ainsworth v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.green2 sentences2005Co., 284 N.J.Super. 117, 131 , 663 A. 2d 1365 (App.Div.1995) (citing Longworth, 223 N.J.Super. at 195 , 538 A. 2d 414 ), certif. denied, 143 N.J. 328 , 670 A .2d 1068 (1996), a UIM carrier is not required by statute to arbitrate prior to final disposition of the case against the tortfeasor. [3] A UIM carrier which is permitted to intervene as a defendant in its insured's negligence case against the alleged tortfeasor is representing its own interest in minimizing the UIM claim, whereas its subrogation right (to stand in the shoes of its own insured as a plaintiff in the negligence action) can 2005Co., 284 N.J.Super. 117, 131 , 663 A. 2d 1365 (App.Div.1995) (citing Longworth, 223 N.J.Super. at 195 , 538 A. 2d 414 ), certif. denied, 143 N.J. 328 , 670 A .2d 1068 (1996), a UIM carrier is not required by statute to arbitrate prior to final disposition of the case against the tortfeasor. [3] A UIM carrier which is permitted to intervene as a defendant in its insured's negligence case against the alleged tortfeasor is representing its own interest in minimizing the UIM claim, whereas its subrogation right (to stand in the shoes of its own insured as a plaintiff in the negligence action) can | 1 | 3 |
Gold v. Aetna Life & Cas. Ins. Co.green2 sentences1996To rule otherwise would lead to the result that underinsured coverage would be eliminated whenever entirely blameless persons involved in an accident happen to be heavily insured. [Id. at 276, 558 A.2d 854 .] In Longworth, supra, the Appellate Division held that “UIM carriers may, if they choose, honor demands from their insureds to proceed to arbitration of the UIM claim prior to disposition of the claim against the tortfeasor.” Longworth, supra, 223 N.J.Super. at 195 , 538 A.2d 414 . 1996To rule otherwise would lead to the result that underinsured coverage would be eliminated whenever entirely blameless persons involved in an accident happen to be heavily insured. [Id. at 276, 558 A.2d 854 .] In Longworth, supra, the Appellate Division held that “UIM carriers may, if they choose, honor demands from their insureds to proceed to arbitration of the UIM claim prior to disposition of the claim against the tortfeasor.” Longworth, supra, 223 N.J.Super. at 195 , 538 A.2d 414 . | 1 | 2 |
Brundage v. Estate of Carambiogreen2 sentences2026Allstate further maintains that despite the resolution of the UIM claim, the appeal is not moot because the "interests of justice" require us to determine the applicability of the IFCA to claimants in plaintiff's position. (citing Brundage v. Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575, 599 (2008)). 2026Allstate further maintains that despite the resolution of the UIM claim, the appeal is not moot because the "interests of justice" require us to determine the applicability of the IFCA to claimants in plaintiff's position. (citing Brundage v. Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575, 599 (2008)). | 1 | 1 |
Bilotti v. Accurate Forming Corp.green1 sentence2021Super. 451 , 463–64 (App. Div. 2000) (holding appellate review of the grant of summary judgment is limited to the record that existed before the A-2543-20 3 motion judge (citing Bilotti v. Accurate Forming Corp., 39 N.J. 184, 188 (1963))).1 In January 2013, NJM acknowledged the Kobrin firm's Longworth2 notice, advising of a proposed settlement with the other driver involved in the accident for her policy limits of $15,000, and plaintiffs' UIM claim under their policy, which included a $300,000 UIM limit. | 1 | 1 |
Morrison v. AMERICAN INTERN. INS.green2 sentences2019In Morrison v. American International Insurance Co. of America, 381 N.J. 2019In Morrison v. American International Insurance Co. of America, 381 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Busik v. Levinegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Turner v. Egangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Outpost Development Corp. v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Levine v. Busickgreen | 1 | 1 |
| MacChi v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL INS.green | 1 | 1 |
| Magnifico v. Rutgers Casualty Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance v. Walkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Parks v. Colonial Penn Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Eugene A. Fisher, Administrator of the Estate of Julie Lynn Fisher, Deceased v. Usaa Casualty Insurance Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ellmex Const. Co., Inc. v. Republic Ins. Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zirger v. General Accident Insurance
green
2 sentences2005NJM's reliance upon Zirger is misplaced, and its contention that Zirger and Longworth are mutually exclusive is mistaken. [7] In Zirger , the Court held that a UIM carrier's acquiescence in its insured's intention to try its damage claim against the underinsured tortfeasor, without first seeking contractual arbitration of the UIM claim, constituted a waiver of its right to *1092 arbitration, with the result that it was bound by the jury's verdict on damages under principles of collateral estoppel. 144 N.J. at 342 , 676 A. 2d 1065 . 2005NJM's reliance upon Zirger is misplaced, and its contention that Zirger and Longworth are mutually exclusive is mistaken. [7] In Zirger , the Court held that a UIM carrier's acquiescence in its insured's intention to try its damage claim against the underinsured tortfeasor, without first seeking contractual arbitration of the UIM claim, constituted a waiver of its right to *1092 arbitration, with the result that it was bound by the jury's verdict on damages under principles of collateral estoppel. 144 N.J. at 342 , 676 A. 2d 1065 . | 4 | 1996–2005 |
Aubrey v. Harleysville Insurance Companies
green
2 sentences1998Cos., 140 N.J. 397 , 658 A.2d 1246 (1995), and its interplay with other opinions, ruled that Prudential was responsible for the whole of Osterman’s UIM claim. 1998Cos., 140 N.J. 397 , 658 A.2d 1246 (1995), and its interplay with other opinions, ruled that Prudential was responsible for the whole of Osterman’s UIM claim. | 4 | 1997–1998 |
Riccio v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance
green
2 sentences2005Co., 108 N.J. 493, 499 , 531 *1232 A. 2d 717 (1987) (noting the conceptual difference between the nature of a UIM claim and a recovery in tort). 2005Co., 108 N.J. 493, 499 , 531 *1232 A. 2d 717 (1987) (noting the conceptual difference between the nature of a UIM claim and a recovery in tort). | 3 | 1988–2005 |
James J. Procopio, Jr. v. Government Employees Insurance Company, A/K/A and D/B/A Geico
green
2 sentences2026A-0742-25 23 In this case, we are convinced that similar to a common law bad faith claim, severing and staying discovery in an IFCA claim until the underlying UIM claim is resolved generally promotes judicial economy and efficiency by holding in abeyance "expensive, time-consuming, and potentially wasteful discovery that may be rendered moot by a favorable ruling for the insurer in the UM or UIM litigation." Procopio, 433 N.J. 2026A-0742-25 23 In this case, we are convinced that similar to a common law bad faith claim, severing and staying discovery in an IFCA claim until the underlying UIM claim is resolved generally promotes judicial economy and efficiency by holding in abeyance "expensive, time-consuming, and potentially wasteful discovery that may be rendered moot by a favorable ruling for the insurer in the UM or UIM litigation." Procopio, 433 N.J. | 2 | 2015–2026 |
Nikiper v. Motor Club of America Cos.
green
2 sentences2023Id. at 397 ; see also Prudential Prop. & Cas. 1990Nevertheless, we held that "where the amount paid by the insurors for the multiple tortfeasors equals or exceeds the amount of UIM coverage, plaintiff has no UIM claim." 232 N.J. | 2 | 1990–2023 |
CNA Ins. Companies v. Cave
green
2 sentences2010In CNA Insurance Cos. v. Cave, 332 N.J.Super. 185, 187 , 753 A. 2d 141 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 165 N.J. 678 , 762 A. 2d 659 (2000), the defendant pursued a UIM claim under his policy when he was badly injured as a passenger in a car whose driver ran a stop sign and collided with another car. 2010In CNA Insurance Cos. v. Cave, 332 N.J.Super. 185, 187 , 753 A. 2d 141 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 165 N.J. 678 , 762 A. 2d 659 (2000), the defendant pursued a UIM claim under his policy when he was badly injured as a passenger in a car whose driver ran a stop sign and collided with another car. | 2 | 2001–2010 |
Roig v. Kelsey
green
2 sentences2007Just as defendant’s decision to pay PIP benefits would not have been admissible in that trial, see Roig, supra, 135 N.J. at 513, 641 A.2d 248 , it was similarly inadmissible in the UIM trial. 2007Just as defendant's decision to pay PIP benefits would not have been admissible in that trial, see Roig, supra, 135 N.J. at 513, 641 A. 2d 248 , it was similarly inadmissible in the UIM trial. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Rivers v. Allstate Insurance
green
2 sentences2005Co., 312 N.J.Super. 379, 383-84 , 711 A. 2d 974 (App.Div.1998) (summarizing the "three-step procedure" required of the injured party by Vassas and Longworth to protect a UIM claim). 2005Co., 312 N.J.Super. 379, 383-84 , 711 A. 2d 974 (App.Div.1998) (summarizing the "three-step procedure" required of the injured party by Vassas and Longworth to protect a UIM claim). | 2 | 2001–2005 |
Cook-Sauvageau v. PMA GROUP
green
2 sentences2004We concluded: Consequently, it would be manifestly inconsistent with the plain language of the UIM endorsement of [the insurer]'s business automobile policy and with the reasonable expectations of both the employer and employee to deny the benefits of UIM coverage to an employee injured while operating one of the employer's vehicles during the course of employment. [ Ibid. ] We also noted that if the UIM provision of the standard business auto policy was construed to cover only the employer, "the premium paid for UIM coverage would not provide any meaningful benefit either to the employer or t 2004We concluded: Consequently, it would be manifestly inconsistent with the plain language of the UIM endorsement of [the insurer]'s business automobile policy and with the reasonable expectations of both the employer and employee to deny the benefits of UIM coverage to an employee injured while operating one of the employer's vehicles during the course of employment. [ Ibid. ] We also noted that if the UIM provision of the standard business auto policy was construed to cover only the employer, "the premium paid for UIM coverage would not provide any meaningful benefit either to the employer or t | 2 | 1997–2004 |
Tyler v. NJ Auto. Full Ins.
green
2 sentences2003Underwriting Ass'n, 228 N.J.Super. 463, 466 , 550 A. 2d 168 (App.Div.1988), plaintiff is precluded from pursuing her UIM claim. 2003Underwriting Ass'n, 228 N.J.Super. 463, 466 , 550 A. 2d 168 (App.Div.1988), plaintiff is precluded from pursuing her UIM claim. | 2 | 1989–2003 |
French v. New Jersey School Board Ass'n Insurance Group
green
2 sentences2000French, supra, 149 N.J. at 495 , 694 A.2d 1008 ; Magnifico, supra, 153 N.J. at 415, 710 A.2d 412 . 2000French, supra, 149 N.J. at 495 , 694 A.2d 1008 ; Magnifico, supra, 153 N.J. at 415, 710 A.2d 412 . | 2 | 1997–2000 |
Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Monmouth County Municipal Joint Insurance Fund
green
2 sentences1995Co. * * *. [ 274 N.J.Super. at 347-48 , 644 A.2d 133 (citations omitted).] We granted certification, 138 N.J. 268 , 649 A.2d 1288 (1994), and now affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the Appellate Division opinion. 1995Co. * * *. [ 274 N.J.Super. at 347-48 , 644 A.2d 133 (citations omitted).] We granted certification, 138 N.J. 268 , 649 A.2d 1288 (1994), and now affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the Appellate Division opinion. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Katchen v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences2022As we concluded in Katchen, "[w]hether the clause is ambiguous as to the UM benefits has no bearing on whether the clause is ambiguous in regard to UIM benefits." Katchen, 457 N.J. 2022As we concluded in Katchen, "[w]hether the clause is ambiguous as to the UM benefits has no bearing on whether the clause is ambiguous in regard to UIM benefits." Katchen, 457 N.J. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Price v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance
green
2 sentences2020It also assumed NJM was "first provided with information it request[ed] and need[ed] to evaluate the UIM claim in order to be in a position to settle and resolve it short of arbitration." The trial court found application of the statute of limitations was "warranted and necessary" to relieve NJM from being required to "litigate a stale claim." On appeal, plaintiffs argue the trial court's order granting summary judgment to NJM should be reversed because the decision is contrary to the Supreme Court's holding in Price v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co., 182 N.J. 519 (2005). 2020It also assumed NJM was "first provided with information it request[ed] and need[ed] to evaluate the UIM claim in order to be in a position to settle and resolve it short of arbitration." The trial court found application of the statute of limitations was "warranted and necessary" to relieve NJM from being required to "litigate a stale claim." On appeal, plaintiffs argue the trial court's order granting summary judgment to NJM should be reversed because the decision is contrary to the Supreme Court's holding in Price v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co., 182 N.J. 519 (2005). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68 Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co.
green
1 sentence2015We recognize predominance does not require "all issues be identical among class members or that each class member be affected in precisely the same manner." Local No. 68 Welfare Fund, supra, 192 N.J. at 383 (citing Fiore v. Hudson Cnty. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Hreshko v. Harleysville Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences2010Hreshko, supra, involved a UIM claim by the driver of the first car rear-ended in a three car collision. 337 N.J.Super. at 106 , 766 A. 2d 776 . 2010Hreshko, supra, involved a UIM claim by the driver of the first car rear-ended in a three car collision. 337 N.J.Super. at 106 , 766 A. 2d 776 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Bardis v. First Trenton Insurance
green
2 sentences2010Co., 199 N.J. 265, 275 , 971 A. 2d 1062 (2009). 2010Co., 199 N.J. 265, 275 , 971 A. 2d 1062 (2009). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hillside Bottling Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2010Co., supra, 387 N.J.Super. at 231 , 903 A. 2d 513 . (a) A "UIM claim is a contractual one, arising out of the insurance policy issued to plaintiff by his own insurer." Bardis v. First Trenton Ins. 2010Co., supra, 387 N.J.Super. at 231 , 903 A. 2d 513 . (a) A "UIM claim is a contractual one, arising out of the insurance policy issued to plaintiff by his own insurer." Bardis v. First Trenton Ins. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Olkusz v. Brown
green
2 sentences2009The statutory prohibition at issue cannot be viewed as "curative," because the holding in Pinto was not predicated on a misapprehension of established legislative policy. [ Id. at 499 , 951 A. 2d 1069 .] As a result, they held that "[a]ny UM/UIM claim predicated upon an accident which predates the adoption of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f) must be governed by the legal principles articulated by the Supreme Court in Pinto [.]" Id. at 506 , 951 A. 2d 1069 . 2009The statutory prohibition at issue cannot be viewed as "curative," because the holding in Pinto was not predicated on a misapprehension of established legislative policy. [ Id. at 499 , 951 A. 2d 1069 .] As a result, they held that "[a]ny UM/UIM claim predicated upon an accident which predates the adoption of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f) must be governed by the legal principles articulated by the Supreme Court in Pinto [.]" Id. at 506 , 951 A. 2d 1069 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Pinto v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Matter of Ca green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Habick v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Kor v. National Consumers Insurance green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Walsh v. State Farm Insurance neutral | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Landi v. Gray red | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Blutreich v. Liberty Mutual Insurance green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Matits v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Aubrey v. Harleysville Insurance Companies green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Patzau v. New Jersey Department of Transportation green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Rox v. Allstate Ins. Co. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.