Case ID: nj-super_246/html/0280-01.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

587 A.2d 629
    MARILYN R. LILLY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
    Argued January 8, 1991
    —Decided January 18, 1991.
    Before Judges MICHELS, BRODY and GRUCCIO.
    
      John T. Petras argued the cause for appellant (Weiner Lesniak, attorneys; John T. Petros, of counsel and on the brief).
    
      Thomas E. Hood argued the cause for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The summary judgment of the Law Division which declared that plaintiff Marilyn R. Lilly was entitled to personal injury protection benefits under a policy of insurance issued by defendant Prudential Insurance Company (more properly referred to as Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company) is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Menza in his written opinion which is reported as Lilly v. Prudential Insurance Company, 246 N.J.Super. 357, 587 A.2d 672 (Law Div.1990).