Beek v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company
This text of 373 A.2d 654 (Beek v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
We affirm essentially .for the reasons expressed by Judge Bischoff, 135 N. J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1975). The principle expressed in Motor Club of America Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 66 N. J. 277 (1974) is equally applicable to the factual situation here. We see no reason to differentiate between the plaintiff’s use of a non-owned or owned vehicle insofar as recovery is warranted under the uninsured motorist endorsement in a separate policy on another vehicle owned by the plaintiff.
*187 For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Mountain, Sullivan, Pashman, Clifford and Schreiber. and Judge Conford — 7.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
373 A.2d 654, 73 N.J. 185, 1977 N.J. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beek-v-ohio-casualty-insurance-company-nj-1977.