Davidson v. Slater

1-30-07 (A-84-05)

Plaintiff was under no obligation under the Automobile Insurance
Cost Reduction Act (AICRA) to produce, as part of her prima
facie presentation in this non-aggravation cause of action, a
comparative analysis in order to satisfy the verbal threshold
proof requirements. As between defendant’s medical proofs and
those presented by plaintiff, the trial court was obliged to
determine whether a genuine issue of proximate cause had been
presented. As to the issue of permanency, the matter is
remanded for further explication of this record by the Appellate
Division in light of the proof requirements for objective
medical evidence of permanency.

John Wiese and Elizabeth Wiese v. Jamir D. Dedhia, et al.

12-13-06 (A-92-05)

All costs as a result of the rejection of an offer of
settlement, including those incurred in Appellate Division and
Supreme Court proceedings, fall within the scope of Rule 4:58-2.

In re Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion No. 697

12-8-06 (A-98-05)

If the scope of an attorney’s engagement by a governmental
entity is limited and not plenary, that attorney and his or her
law firm are not per se prohibited from representing private
clients before the governmental entity or one of the boards or
agencies of that governmental entity (including the municipal
court), and the provisions of R.P.C. 1.8(k) shall govern all
instances in which the attorney or law firm seeks to undertake
such representation

Charles Beseler Company v. O’Gorman & Young, Inc., et al.

12-4-06 (A-75-05)

The C.5. exclusion of New Jersey Manufacturer’s Workers’
Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance Policy does not
apply to the type of conduct alleged in this case – an
unintended injury caused by an intentional wrong.

New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company v. Delta Plastics Corporation, et al.

12-4-06 (A-87-05)

For the reasons set forth in Beseler v. O’Gorman & Young, Inc.,
also decided today, the Court affirms the judgment of the
Appellate Division. The C.5. exclusion of New Jersey
Manufacturer’s Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability
Insurance Policy does not apply to the type of conduct alleged
in this case – an unintended injury caused by an intentional
wrong.

Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow, et al. v. Gwendolyn L. Harris, etc. et al.

10-25-06 (A-68-05)

Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social
benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual
counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate
governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal
protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey
Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on
equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex
couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given
to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits
to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a
matter left to the democratic process.

Victor Dziuba and Alexandra Dziuba, husband and wife v. Scott J. Fletcher, et al.

10-12-06 (A-90-05)

Judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for
the reasons expressed in Judge Weissbard’s written opinion.
N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5a does not preclude an injured uninsured
motorist from recovering non-economic damages under a
defendant’s policy of automobile insurance when the uninsured
motorist was not operating his uninsured vehicle at the time of
the accident involving defendant’s car.