Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2003

Everett v. State Farm Indemnity Co.

Everett v. State Farm Indemnity Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey · Decided March 6, 2003 · Affirmance, Albin, Coleman, Lavecchia, Long, Poritz, Reversal, Verniero, Zazzali
175 N.J. 567; 818 A.2d 319; 2003 N.J. LEXIS 187

Everett v. State Farm Indemnity Co.

Dissenting Opinion

LONG, J.,

dissenting.

I would affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of State Farm. Like the dissenter below, Judge Fisher, I conclude that State Farm’s bookkeeping entry, reflecting an adjustment to plaintiffs deductible is not a “payment” under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-13.1(a) or within common parlance.

Justice VERNIERO joins in this opinion.

For affirmance — Chief Justice PORITZ and JUSTICES COLEMAN, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI and ALBIN — 5. For reversal — Justices LONG and VERNIERO — 2.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the Per Curiam opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 358 N.J.Super. 400, 818 A.2d 372 (2001).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑