Case ID: nj_73/html/0185-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RONALD BEEK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    Argued March 7, 1977
    Decided May 13, 1977.
    
      
      Mr. Thomas M. Guiney argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. DeYoe, Guiney and Baziano, attorneys).
    
      Mr. Elwyn Saviet argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Gelman and Gelman, attorneys).
   Per Curiam.

We affirm essentially .for the reasons expressed by Judge Bischoff, 135 N. J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1975). The principle expressed in Motor Club of America Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 66 N. J. 277 (1974) is equally applicable to the factual situation here. We see no reason to differentiate between the plaintiff’s use of a non-owned or owned vehicle insofar as recovery is warranted under the uninsured motorist endorsement in a separate policy on another vehicle owned by the plaintiff.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Mountain, Sullivan, Pashman, Clifford and Schreiber. and Judge Conford — 7.

For reversal — None.