Drive-by's and insurance

More
15 years 8 months ago #1 by demonicdreamz
A woman wounded in a drive-by shooting isn't entitlted to coverage for uninsured motorists, New Jersey's highest court ruled today.

Although the shooting qualifies as an "accident," under state law, the woman's injuries weren't caused by the "ownership, maintenance, operation or use of an uninsured motor vehicle," the Supreme Court ruled.

So she'll have to find another way to cover her $600,000 in medical bills.

The victim had just left an Irvington grocery store when she was shot in February 2005. Witnesses reported seeing an older model Toyota speed off.


The justices' 4-3 ruling found that her injuries "were not causally connected to the insured's use of her motor vehicle."

The dissenters argued that the "operation or use of the uninsured vehicle provided the 'opportunity for the assault' and would not likely have occurred 'without the use of a car.'"

Ironically, commerical auto insurance grants personal injury protection for drive-bys. The state's uninsured motorist coverage doesn't, the justices pointed out.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Powered by Kunena Forum