Fox Rothschild litigator Mark S. Hanna secured two significant victories on behalf of American Millennium Insurance Company (AMIC) in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County — Law Division, both argued and decided on the same day before the same judge. The rulings reaffirm the well-settled principle under New Jersey law that passengers in commercial automobiles are not automatically entitled to first-party uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits from the host vehicle's insurance policy.

Both matters presented the same core question: whether a passenger in a commercial vehicle, such as a taxi, is entitled to UM/UIM benefits under the host vehicle's commercial auto insurance policy. Under New Jersey law, UM/UIM coverage is mandated only for "persons insured" under a given policy, and the AMIC commercial auto policies at issue define "insureds" for UM/UIM purposes as the named insured, employees of the named insured and covered drivers — not passengers.

Marques, et al. v. Go Car Service Inc., et al.

In the first matter, plaintiffs were passengers in a vehicle registered to Go Car Service, Inc. and insured by AMIC when it was involved in a collision in Newark, New Jersey. Plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to add AMIC as a defendant and to obtain UM/UIM benefits under Go Car's AMIC policy. After the court granted the motion to amend, Fox Rothschild moved to dismiss on the grounds that as passengers in a commercial vehicle, plaintiffs were not "insureds" under the UM/UIM endorsement and had no legal entitlement to UM/UIM benefits. The court denied that motion but reversed its decision on reconsideration.

King v. Cumbicus Transportation, LLC, et al.

In the second matter, plaintiff was a passenger in a commercial vehicle registered to Cumbicus Transportation LLC and insured by AMIC when it was involved in a collision in Newark, New Jersey. Plaintiff sought UM/UIM benefits from AMIC as a passenger in the insured vehicle. Fox Rothschild moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the plaintiff was not an "insured" under the AMIC policy's UM/UIM endorsement and that New Jersey law imposes no obligation on insurers to provide UM/UIM coverage to passengers in commercial automobiles.

In both matters, the court agreed that the passengers were not “insured” under the AMIC policies at issue and dismissed all claims against AMIC with prejudice.

Hanna was assisted by Francis G. Tiongson

As this article contains statements regarding past performance, please note that results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.