Legal Opinion

Esdaile v. Angle

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided January 7, 1992PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge D’Annunzio’s dissent. See Esdaile v. Hartsfield, 245 N.J.Super. 591, 600-02, 586 A.2d 334 (1991). In doing so we imply no position on whether a recipient of payments in the nature of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits from the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund (Fund) may maintain a cause of action for those same special damages against a third-party tortfeasor. Nor do we resolve the issue of whether the Fund may seek reimbursement from a third-party tortfeasor for payments in the nature…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Gilchrist Brothers, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
  2. Wilson v. Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund Bd.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1988
  3. Buoni v. Browning Ferres IndustriesNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1987
  4. Esdaile v. HartsfieldNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1991

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board v. New Jersey Manufacturers InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1994
  2. UCJF v. NJ Mfrs. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1994
  3. Allianz Insurance v. GarrettDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1994
  4. Auguste v. SearsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1999
  5. FRANK DEGENNARO VS. PHILO CHAPMAN L-0250-17, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2019

1 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