Law Offices of John C. Lane
Call us at: 201-848-6000
New Jersey Supreme Court Bars Wrongful Death Lawsuit if Decedent Does Not Maintain Auto Insurance
In Aronberg v. Tolbert, a mother brought a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of the estate of her son, who was an uninsured operator of an automobile and who lost his life in a motor vehicle accident. A New Jersey statute, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(a), provides that any person who fails to maintain statutorily required no-fault insurance “shall have no cause of action for recovery of economic or noneconomic loss sustained as a result of an accident while operating an uninsured automobile.” The trial court held that this provision barred the companion survivorship action for pain and suffering sustained while the son remained alive, but did not bar the wrongful death action. The Appellate Division affirmed that holding with a split decision and a strong dissent. The Supreme Court accepted the case for appeal and recently issued its ruling, reversing the holdings below.
The Supreme Court viewed this case as one of statutory interpretation, considering both the statute under inspection and also the Wrongful Death Act. The latter statute permits a lawsuit by the heirs of the decedent for economic damages that the decedent would be “entitled” to recover if he had not died. The Court had to make a decision between the Wrongful Death Act, which is intended to allow heirs to bring a lawsuit, and the auto insurance reform statute, which bars lawsuits when the injured person did not purchase or maintain the requisite auto insurance coverage.
The argument for the mother’s case is that the heirs played no part in the son’s failure to have insurance and therefore should not be punished for his omission. The contrary argument, adopted, by the Supreme Court, is two-fold. First, the Wrongful Death statute allows a lawsuit by the heirs where the decedent himself would have been “entitled” to bring a lawsuit. But the insurance statute holds that the decedent would not have been “entitled,” because of his failure to have insurance. Second, the purpose of the legislature in enacting the insurance reform law was to present a strong incentive for drivers to have the required auto insurance. The Court concluded that holding that the insurance statute applies to a wrongful death action, “furthers the Legislature’s purpose of coercing compliance with our automobile insurance laws.” The unanimous decision was rendered on August 29, 2010.
Thus, there can be no lawsuit, for survivorship damages, or for wrongful death damages, sought in connection with the accidental death from an automobile accident if the decedent was operating a vehicle for which he had no insurance. Incidentally, the same insurance reform law also bars a lawsuit by or on behalf of an individual injured while operating a vehicle if that individual is convicted of driving while intoxicated at the time of the accident.
© September 2011, Law Offices of John C. Lane
For comments or questions on this article email: info@jclane.com
