Morgan v. Orcinoli
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
1Opinion of the Court
THOMAS, J. S. C.
Are the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act (No Fault Law), N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1 et seq., and the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund Law, N.J.S.A. 39:6-61 et seq., which exclude motorcyclists from personal injury protection (P.I.P.) cov*340erage, in violation of motorcyclists’ equal protection rights? The answer is no.
Plaintiff was injured when the motorcycle he was operating collided with an automobile. He contends the company insuring his motorcycle or, in the alternative, the UCJ Fund should provide him with P.I.P. coverage even though both statutes (N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4 and…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Shavers v. Attorney GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
- Montgomery v. DanielsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Singer v. SheppardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Manzanares v. BellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1974
- Lasky v. State Farm Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Florida · 1974
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Solorzano v. SapunarichNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2006