. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.

ARTICLE ID 161473

$________ - Insurance Obligation - Motor vehicle negligence - Auto/Pedestrian Collision Inside Crosswalk - 18-year-old high school senior struck inside crosswalk by 18-year-old uninsured driver - Plaintiff contends defendant automobile dealership fails to adhere to NJ regulations requiring proof of insurance before sale - Plaintiff contends dealership and insurance carrier engaged in civil conspiracy - Fractured tibia - Open reduction - Internal fixation - External fixation device.

Monmouth County, NJ

This action involved a male, 18-year-old, high school senior plaintiff pedestrian, who was struck by the 18-year-old driver while crossing in the crosswalk at the end of the school day. The plaintiff maintained that the driver had purchased the car approximately two weeks earlier from the defendant dealership and that the dealership’s sales practice involved convincing the driver to purchase the car and permitting her to drive away from the dealership without proof of insurance coverage as required by law. The plaintiff contended that the dealership engaged in this practice in order to convince the young person to purchase the car quickly, irrespective of whether she gave sufficient consideration to the issue of whether she would be able to also afford insurance. The collision occurred after the 10-day temporary insurance issued with the sale expired and the driver was uninsured.

The plaintiff maintained that the dealership engaged in an unconscionable consumer practice and should be liable under the Consumer Fraud Act. The dealership, who denied engaging in an unconscionable practice, also moved for Summary Judgment of this count on the issue of standing. The plaintiff’s arguments in countering this position included the contention that the plaintiff should be considered a third party beneficiary.

The plaintiff also contended that the dealership, which retained title to the car as a matter of law, was furthering its economic interest by selling the car to the purchaser under such circumstances and that it should be liable under an implied agency theory. The plaintiff further maintained that the carrier issuing the temporary policy also benefited from the manner in which the sale was conducted and had engaged in a civil conspiracy with the dealership.

The plaintiff suffered a fractured tibia that required open reduction with internal fixation and the application of an external fixation device. The plaintiff also suffered a secondary infection that required additional surgery. The plaintiff maintained that he will suffer permanent pain and limitations.

The Court denied the dealership’s motion for Summary Judgment on the Consumer Fraud count, and this aspect subsequently settled for $________. The plaintiff’s implied agency count settled for $________ and the plaintiff’s claims against the carrier that issued the temporary insurance settled for $________.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.