Legal Opinion

Soto v. Scaringelli

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided March 21, 2007PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Rivera-Soto

New Jersey’s compulsory automobile insurance statutory scheme distinguishes between those who seek recovery for economic loss — “uncompensated loss of income or property, or other uncompensated expenses, including, but not limited to, medical expenses[,]’’ N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2k — and those who seek recovery for nonecomonic loss — that is, loss for “pain, suffering and inconvenience[,]” N.J. S.A. 39:6A-2i. The noneconomic loss category of cases is further defined. If the verbal threshold 1 or limitation on lawsuit option applies, an injured person may not maintain a lawsuit for noneeomonie damages…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1995
  2. DiProspero v. PennSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2005
  3. Oswin v. ShawSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
  4. Gilhooley v. County of UnionSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2000
  5. Van Horn v. William Blanchard Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1981

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Daidone v. Buterick BulkheadingSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2007
  2. Nini v. Mercer County Community CollegeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2010
  3. In Re the Liquidation of Integrity InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2007
  4. JEN ELECTRIC, INC. v. County of EssexSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2009
  5. Sciarrotta v. Global SpectrumSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2008

26 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