Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Advocates
Judges

RONALD BEEK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

PER CURIAM.

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. For affirmance — Chief Justice HUGHES, Justices MOUNTAIN, SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD and SCHREIBER and Judge CONFORD — 7.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BEEK v. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
(May 13, 1977)