Hardy ex rel. Dowdell v. Abdul-Matin, 198 N.J. 95

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a passenger injured while occupying a stolen vehicle without the owner's permission was excluded from receiving Personal Injury Protection benefits under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-7(b)(2) and the applicable insurance policy. The Court declined to read a knowledge or scienter requirement into the statutory or policy language and reversed the Appellate Division in part, remanding for entry of judgment for Liberty Mutual on the PIP claim. Two justices dissented.

Holdings

1. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-7(b)(2) does not require proof that an injured person knew he lacked the owner's permission to occupy the vehicle. The statute authorizes exclusion of PIP benefits when the person was occupying or operating an automobile without the owner's permission.
2. The policy's PIP exclusion is clear and unambiguous and does not contain an implied reasonable-belief, knowledge, or scienter requirement.
3. Hardy was not entitled to PIP benefits because he occupied the stolen vehicle without the owner's permission, even though he allegedly did not know the vehicle was stolen.

Questions Presented

1. Whether N.J.S.A. 39:6A-7(b)(2) requires an injured passenger to know that he lacked the vehicle owner's permission before PIP benefits may be excluded.
2. Whether the Liberty Mutual policy's PIP exclusion, which tracked N.J.S.A. 39:6A-7(b)(2), contains an implied scienter or reasonable-belief requirement.
3. Whether the PIP exclusion barred Hardy's claim because he occupied a stolen vehicle without the owner's permission, regardless of his lack of knowledge.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded