Attorneys received a victory in the State Supreme Court

Attorneys received a victory in the State Supreme Court. In a published decision, the attorneys' convinced the Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the Appellate Division, which has read a scienter requirement into a statute which permits carriers to exclude coverage under PIP if a party is injured while occupying or operating a car without the permission of the owner. In the case, a young man was injured when the car in which he was a passenger was involved in an accident. He was picked up by a relative and a friend of the relative. Unbeknownst to the plaintiff, the car had been reported stolen earlier that day. The plaintiff sought coverage for PIP benefits under the policy of his grandmother, with whom he lived. The Appellate Division held that the statute did not apply, because there was no evidence that the plaintiff knew the car was stolen. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the unambiguous language of the statute and the policy made it clear that before the plaintiff could recover for PIP benefits, he must have had the permission of the owner to be in the car. The fact that he did not know the car was stolen was held irrelevant.