N.J. Stat. » Title 17 — CORPORATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS FOR FINANCE AND INSURANCE
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 17:29A-33 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sections 1 to 12 of this act shall be known and may be cited as the "New Jersey Automobile Insurance Reform Act of 1982."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1988–2003 · leading case: In Re Adams, 106 B.R. 811 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Adams, 106 B.R. 811 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1989). · cites it 2× “1985) examined New Jersey automobile insurance laws as they existed prior to the enactment of the New Jersey Insurance Reform Act of 1982 and the New Jersey Automobile Full Insurance Availability Act, N.J.S.A. 17:29A-33 et seq. and N.J.S.A. 17:30E-1 et seq.”
In Re Bill, 90 B.R. 651 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1988). “65, N.J.S.A. 17:29A-33 et seq., was intended to address the problem of high automobile insurance rates in this State.”
Matter of Kent, 190 B.R. 196 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1995). “Sections 1 to 12 of the act were referred to as the “New Jersey Automobile Insurance Reform Act of 1982” (“NJAIRA” or “Reform Act”) (codified in N.J.S.A. 17:29A-33 to -47). Sections 13 to 34 of the act were referred to as the New Jersey Automobile Full Insurance Availability Act…”
Christensen v. New Jersey, Div. of Motor Vehs. (In Re Christensen), 95 B.R. 886 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1988). “Snedeker the court stated: Prior to January 1, 1983, the effective date of the Reform Act, an individual convicted of a drunken driving offense was subject to criminal penalties imposed by the State including fines, points on the license, license suspension or revocation, or…”
Lugo v. Paulsen (In Re Lugo), 94 B.R. 335 (D.N.J. 1989). “N.J.S.A. 17:29A-33 et seq. The laws of the State of New Jersey require that all drivers demonstrate the vehicle being operated is covered by liability insurance.”
Lugo v. Paulsen, 105 B.R. 602 (3d Cir. 1989). “65; N.J.S.A. 17:29A-33 et seq. and N.J.S.A. 39:5-30.”
Pulley v. Legreide (In Re Pulley), 295 B.R. 28 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2003). “First, through the Automobile Insurance Reform Act of 1982, N.J.S.A. 17:29A-33 et seq., a more equitable and uniform Merit Rating Plan was established equalizing allowed surcharges.”
Lugo v. Paulsen, 886 F.2d 602 (3d Cir. 1989). “65; N.J.S.A. 17:29A-33 et seq. and N.J.S.A. 39:5-30.”
In Re DeJesus, 243 B.R. 241 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1999). “The incidents of a motor vehicle surcharge under New Jersey law must be reviewed to determine whether the New Jersey motor vehicle surcharge is a tax or a penalty.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.