|
Newsletter -
Fall 2010
|
New Jersey has implemented a public policy rationale "todeter drunk driving, the intentional use of automobilesas weapons, and drivers from operating uninsured vehicles"by barring such drivers from maintaining an action fordamages arising from an automobile accident." Caviglia v.Royal Tours of Am., 178 N.J. 460, 474 (2004). To that end,N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(a) bars uninsured drivers from suingfor personal injuries sustained in automobile accidents.In cases that arise out of the death of an uninsured driverinvolved in an automobile accident, Courts have enforcedthis statutory bar to survivorship actions. Recently, theAppellate Division has made an important distinction byholding that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(a) does not apply to wrongfuldeath actions.
In The Estate of Aronberg v. Tolbert, et. al., the AppellateDivision refused to apply N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(a) to awrongful death action brought by Plaintiff's mother. In TheEstate of Aronberg, the decedent, a New Jersey resident,insured his automobile with Allstate Insurance Company.As a result of the decedent's failure to pay premiums whendue, the insurance was canceled prior to his fatal motorvehicle accident. The decedent's mother, Sheila Aronberg,brought this action, alleging a survival claim on behalf ofthe decedent and a wrongful death claim on behalf of theestate, against Wendell Tolbert, a driver involved in theaccident, and his employer ("Defendants"). Defendants'motion for summary judgment was granted in part, resultingin the dismissal of the survival claim, and denied as tothe wrongful death claim. The Defendants filed an appealof the partial denial of their summary judgment motion asto the wrongful death claim.
In affirming the trial court's ruling, the Appellate Divisionrelied upon Miller v. Estate of Sperling, 166 N.J. 370,(2001). In Miller, the New Jersey Supreme Court permitteda decedent's heirs to bring a wrongful death claimbased upon malpractice even though the decedent failedto assert a claim before the expiration of the statute oflimitations. The Supreme Court explained that the WrongfulDeath Act must be liberally construed to serve its purposeof creating a right of recovery for the economic losscaused by the death of a family member. In this case, theAppellate Division reasoned that the application of thestatutory bar to a wrongful death action would needlesslycurtail the Wrongful Death Act's remedial purpose of creatinga right of recovery to the Estate of Aronberg.
Moreover, the Appellate Division held that the goals inherentto N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(a) would not be served if thePlaintiff's wrongful death claim was barred. Namely, theCourt stated that the goals of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(a) aretwofold: (1) punish the uninsured driver; (2) create anincentive to comply with compulsory insurance laws. TheCourt further reasoned that there is no intent on the partof the Legislature to punish innocent family members foran uninsured driver's failure to secure insurance. Further,there is little likelihood that applying the bar to the wrongfuldeath action would enhance the incentive to obtaininsurance by drivers who are currently uninsured.
Insurance carriers and defense attorneys must recognizethe implication of The Estate of Aronberg decision. Thedismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint based upon the statutorybar of N.J.S.A. 39:6a-4.5(a) will only be available to thedefense for losses sustained by the decedent had he lived.Therefore, in situations involving the death of an uninsureddriver, the defense must still prepare for a wrongful deathclaim by the estate. It remains to be seen whether theNew Jersey Legislature will clarify N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(a) asit applies to wrongful death actions.
Rey O. Villaneuva, Esq.
|
