Plaintiff Driving Uninsured Vehicle Found To Be Full Tort Because Involved in Accident With a Vehicle Registered in Another State

In the case of Devoue v. American Sitework, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-06003-KSM (E.D. Pa. March 4, 2022 Marston, J.), the court addressed whether or not a Plaintiff should be considered to be a limited tort Plaintiff or a full tort Plaintiff under a given set of circumstances.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was driving an uninsured vehicle when he was allegedly injured in an accident that occurred when pebbles allegedly fell from the back of the Defendant’s vehicle which was registered in New Jersey.

Ordinarily, under Pennsylvania law, the Plaintiff would be deemed to be a limited tort Plaintiff under §1705(a)(5) because he was the owner of a registered but uninsured vehicle.

However, in this case, the court held that, in the third party case, the Plaintiff would be considered a full tort Plaintiff under §1705(d) because the Plaintiff was allegedly injured as a result of the alleged negligence of a driver of a vehicle that was registered in another state. As such, the court ruled that the Plaintiff need not show that he sustained a serious injury in order to cover non-economic damages.

A review of the court’s detailed Order revealed that the court came to this conclusion through its construction of the statutory language.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Scott B. Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Schmidt Kramer P.C., for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Michael Fousert on www.unsplash.com.

New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act Applied To Preclude Damages in Pennsylvania Auto Accident Case

 

In the case of Williams v. Reczynski, No. C-0048-CV-2016-3019 (C.P. Northampton Co. Dec. 14, 2017 Dally, J.), the court granted the Defendant’s Motion In Limine to preclude evidence of medical expenses and non-economic damages in a motor vehicle accident case.  

This matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Pennsylvania.  The Defendants were Pennsylvania residents.  According the allegations in the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that she was a resident of New Jersey at the time of the accident.  

During the course of discovery, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff had no insurance on her automobile at the time of the accident.  

The Defendants asserted that New Jersey law should be applied in the matter and that, under New Jersey law, the Plaintiffs should be precluded from seeking economic and non-economic damages pursuant to the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act.  

According to the Opinion, although Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law does not preclude an uninsured motorist from claiming economic damages, under New Jersey law, an uninsured motorist is precluded from seeking any damages for economic or non-economic losses.  

After completing a conflicts of law analysis, the Northampton County of Court of Common Pleas ruled that New Jersey law should indeed apply on this issue.   Applying that New Jersey law, the court granted the Defendant’s motion to preclude the Plaintiff's damages claims.  

Anyone wishing to review this case may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney John A. Statler and Jason Statler of the Lemoyne, Pa law firm of Johnson & Duffy for bringing this case to my attention.