East News

N.J. Court: Underinsured Motorist Policy Covers Drive-by Shooting Victim

A woman injured by a bullet from a drive-by shooting is entitled to recover under her uninsured motorist coverage, even though she was not in her car at the time of the shooting, according to a New Jersey Appellate Division ruling.

Advertisement

Plaintiff Camie Livsey was severely injured by a drive-by shooter as she was getting into her car. Livsey claimed coverage under her uninsured motorist policy, arguing that it was triggered because the shooter was in a vehicle.

Uninsured motorist coverage typically provides benefits for damages from a hit-and-run driver or a driver without auto insurance.

Livsey's insurance company denied coverage, and a lower court dismissed her case.

But the appellate judges, citing two New Jersey Supreme Court rulings, concluded there is no requirement that the vehicle "literally strike the insured" in order for a policyholder to receive benefits.

"[T]he automobile did more than provide a setting or an enhanced opportunity for the assault. In addition to allowing the assailant to be at the place of attack, it furnished the assailant with what he must have assumed would be both anonymity and a means of escape. The assailant would not likely have committed such an act of apparently random violence use of a car," the judges wrote.

The case is Camie Livsey v. Mercury Insurance Group.

Comments? Click here to post a comment about this article

Subject Posted By Posted On
What about the children who are killed by drive b's anon
Nov 7, 2007, 9:10 am
RE: NJ SP
Nov 2, 2007, 11:35 am
RE: RE: RE: RE: Impressed Mary B.
Nov 1, 2007, 2:50 pm
RE: Jackson CJ
Nov 1, 2007, 12:29 pm
I beg to differ CJ
Nov 1, 2007, 12:27 pm
RE: RE: RE: RE: Impressed Mary
Nov 1, 2007, 10:27 am
Jackson A different Mark
Nov 1, 2007, 10:23 am
RE: RE: RE: Impressed Jackson
Nov 1, 2007, 10:05 am
RE: RE: Impressed Mary
Nov 1, 2007, 9:16 am
RE: Clients Wanted CJ
Oct 31, 2007, 2:45 pm
Clients Wanted Dewey Cheatem & Howe
Oct 31, 2007, 2:36 pm
RE: Impressed CJ
Oct 31, 2007, 2:22 pm
Appauled CJ
Oct 31, 2007, 2:14 pm
Impressed Mary
Oct 31, 2007, 9:43 am
RE: RE: RE: RE: And they wonder why ecm
Oct 31, 2007, 7:59 am
RE: RE: RE: And they wonder why Alice
Oct 31, 2007, 7:43 am
RE: RE: RE: And they wonder why lastbat
Oct 30, 2007, 5:05 pm
RE: RE: And they wonder why Reverend
Oct 30, 2007, 4:27 pm
RE: And they wonder why Big E
Oct 30, 2007, 3:52 pm
NJ Dustin
Oct 30, 2007, 3:51 pm
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Idiots... Nuff Said
Oct 30, 2007, 2:19 pm
RE: RE: RE: RE: Idiots... lastbat
Oct 30, 2007, 1:53 pm
RE: RE: RE: Idiots... Claims Guy
Oct 30, 2007, 1:45 pm
RE: RE: Idiots... ad
Oct 30, 2007, 1:10 pm
Mercury should... Jerry Rigg
Oct 30, 2007, 12:57 pm
NJ Court Canada
Oct 30, 2007, 12:52 pm
RE: Idiots... fenkazl
Oct 30, 2007, 12:40 pm
Intentional Acts A different Mark
Oct 30, 2007, 12:38 pm
RE: Next up... The Reaper
Oct 30, 2007, 12:32 pm
Next up... Actuary
Oct 30, 2007, 12:28 pm
Idiots... Mark
Oct 30, 2007, 9:56 am