Legal Opinion

Serrano v. Serrano

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided June 14, 2005PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Albin

In DiProspero v. Penn, decided today, we held that an automobile accident victim subject to the limitation on lawsuit threshold need only prove that her injuries satisfy one of the six statutorily defined threshold categories in the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act (AICRA) to sue for pain and suffering damages. 183 N.J., 477, 480-82, 874 A.2d 1039, 1041-42 (2005). We further held that the Legislature did not intend to impose on the victim the additional requirement — not found in the statute — of proving that her injuries caused a serious impact on her life. Id. at 481-82, 874 A.2d at…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited4 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. James v. TorresNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2002

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Johnson v. ScaccettiSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2007
  2. Davidson v. SlaterSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2007
  3. N.H. v. H.H.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2011
  4. Mazzacano v. Estate of KinnermanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2009
  5. Pardo v. DominguezNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2006

25 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