Legal Opinion

Beek v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided May 13, 1977PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm essentially .for the reasons expressed by Judge Bischoff, 135 N. J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1975). The principle expressed in Motor Club of America Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 66 N. J. 277 (1974) is equally applicable to the factual situation here. We see no reason to differentiate between the plaintiff’s use of a non-owned or owned vehicle insofar as recovery is warranted under the uninsured motorist endorsement in a separate policy on another vehicle owned by the plaintiff.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Mountain, Sullivan, Pashman, Clifford and Schreiber. and Judge Conford…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Motor Club of America Insurance v. PhillipsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1974
  2. Beek v. Ohio Casualty Insurance CompanyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1975

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Cardin v. Royal Insurance Co. of AmericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  3. Hillman v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Lundy v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1983
  5. Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. VolkmannOhio Supreme Court · 1978

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API