SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0106-17T2

CHRISTOPHER COX,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KRYSTAL TOMASSO, NJM 

INSURANCE GROUP, and/or

NEW JERSEY REINSURANCE

GROUP,

Defendants,

and

NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________

Argued October 11, 2018 – Decided November 1, 2018

Before Judges Reisner and Mawla.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. L-1585-16.

Joseph P. Grimes argued the cause for appellant.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-0106-17T2

Malcolm I. McPherson argued the cause for respondent 

(Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP,

attorneys; Malcolm I. McPherson, of counsel and on the 

brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Christopher Cox appeals from a June 23, 2017 order granting 

summary judgment in favor of defendant, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance 

Company (NJM).1 We affirm. 

Plaintiff was injured when a car driven by Krystal Tomasso struck the 

motorcycle he was riding. Plaintiff had insured his motorcycle through Rider 

Insurance Company (Rider) under a policy with a $15,000 liability limit, which 

was $10,000 less than the $25,000 limit Tomasso had on her car. Thus, 

Tomasso's vehicle was not underinsured compared to the coverage on plaintiff's 

motorcycle. See N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)(1) (defining underinsured motor 

vehicle).2

However, plaintiff sought underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under a 

$500,000-limit policy he had obtained from NJM to cover his pick-up truck. 

 

1 The complaint improperly named two other entities in addition to NJM. 

2 Tomasso tendered the $25,000 available under her policy, and plaintiff settled 

with her before filing his notice of appeal. 
3

A-0106-17T2

The liability section of the NJM policy specifically stated that NJM did not 

provide liability coverage for "the ownership, maintenance or use" of any 

vehicle with fewer than four wheels. In other words, NJM did not provide 

liability coverage for plaintiff's motorcycle, or for plaintiff while he was riding 

a motorcycle.3 Hence, he obtained a separate policy from Rider to cover his 

motorcycle. Plaintiff was the named insured on that policy. 

The UIM section of the NJM policy (paragraph A.7.) explicitly excluded 

coverage for plaintiff "[w]hile occupying any vehicle insured by another motor 

vehicle policy in which you or a family member are a named insured." That 

provision further stated: "However, this exclusion . . . does not affect UM/UIM 

coverage for minimum limits required by New Jersey law for liability coverage 

as set forth in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-3."

4 NJM denied plaintiff's UIM claim on the 

basis of this exclusion, because he was the named insured on the Rider 

motorcycle policy, and Tomasso's vehicle had limits higher than the $15,000 

minimum required by law. 

 

3 The exclusion had an exception, not relevant here, for use of a vehicle in a 

medical emergency. 

4 This statutory section, which was underlined in the policy, requires minimum 

liability coverage of $15,000 per person injured. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-3(a). 
4

A-0106-17T2

The trial judge granted NJM summary judgment, reasoning that the policy 

exclusion was unambiguous and was clearly applicable to plaintiff's situation. 

He also concluded that the exception for the minimum required limits for 

liability coverage did not render the exclusion ambiguous. The trial judge 

rejected plaintiff's argument that the NJM Buyer's Guide created an ambiguity 

in the policy. 

On this appeal, plaintiff presents the following points of argument:

Point One: NJM's Policy as Exclusion [A.]7 is unclear, 

ambiguous, contrary to the reasonable expectations of 

the insured and contrary to public policy.

Point Two: The lower Court erred in failing to find that 

the Buyer's Guide provided by Insurer which did not 

mention the UIM step down provisions of the policy 

conflicted with Insurer's policy language thereby 

creating an ambiguity regarding the enforceability of 

the step-down provision.

Point Three: The lower Court erred in finding that UIM 

coverage follows the vehicle and not the insured. 

On appeal, we owe no deference to the trial court's legal interpretations, 

including the interpretation of an insurance contract. See Polarome Int'l, Inc. v. 

Greenwich Ins. Co., 404 N.J. Super. 241, 259-60 (App. Div. 2008). Having 

engaged in de novo review, we find no merit in any of plaintiff's arguments. We 

affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the trial judge, and for the reasons 
5

A-0106-17T2

stated in this opinion. Except as addressed herein, plaintiff's appellate 

arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant additional discussion. R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(E). 

In construing an insurance policy, we bear in mind that insurance policies 

are contracts of adhesion drafted by experts but read by consumers who are lay 

persons. See Polarome, 404 N.J. Super. at 258. Accordingly, we strive to give 

effect to the insured's reasonable expectations, and we construe genuinely 

ambiguous clauses favorably to the insured. Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. 

Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 224 N.J. 189, 200, 205 (2016). Nonetheless, an 

"insurance policy that is clear and unambiguous should be enforced as written." 

Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., Recreational Prod. Ins. Div. v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. 

Co., 299 N.J. Super. 307, 312 (App. Div. 1997). If the policy's plain language 

is unambiguous, "we will not 'engage in a strained construction to support the 

imposition of liability' or write a better policy for the insured than the one 

purchased." Templo, 224 N.J. at 200 (citation omitted). We agree with the trial 

judge that the NJM policy is not genuinely ambiguous, and the trial judge's 

interpretation of the policy is consistent with the insured's reasonable 

expectations. 
6

A-0106-17T2

Plaintiff misplaces reliance on Worldwide Underwriters Insurance Co. v. 

Brady, 973 F.2d 192 (3d Cir. 1992), a case he cites in support of an argument 

presented to us for the first time in his reply brief. Worldwide concerned a 

liability insurance policy that contained an exclusion for injuries to family 

members of the insured. Id. at 192. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had 

previously found the exclusion violated the public policy underlying that state's 

insurance statutes.

5

Id. at 192-93 n.2. However, the Pennsylvania Insurance 

Department later permitted the exclusion so long as it provided at least the 

minimum coverage required by state law. Id. at 193. Reflecting that exception, 

the policy language read as follows:

We do not provide Liability Coverage for any person 

for bodily injury to you or any family member to the 

extent that the limits of liability for this coverage 

exceed the limits of liability required by the 

Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility 

Law of 1984. 

[Ibid.]

The Third Circuit concluded that because the exclusion did not reveal "the 

dollar amount limit" set forth in the cited statute, the policyholder would have 

 

5 New Jersey courts have reached a similar conclusion with respect to auto 

insurance policies. See Zacarias v. Allstate Ins. Co., 168 N.J. 590, 599 (2001) 

(citing Kish v. Motor Club of Am. Ins. Co., 108 N.J. Super. 405 (1970)). 
7

A-0106-17T2

no idea what the clause meant. Id. at 196. The court further reasoned: 

"[c]onsidering, as we should, the document as a whole, we find that the 

exclusion does not inform the insured that full coverage for his family members 

was compromised." Ibid. (citation omitted). Relying on Worldwide, plaintiff 

argues that the statutory reference in the NJM policy likewise renders the A.7 

exclusion ambiguous. 

Worldwide is not binding on us. However, we also conclude it is not on 

point here. Unlike the policy provision in Worldwide, the NJM exclusion began 

with a complete sentence clearly stating a general exclusion. A reasonable 

reader would understand the exclusion as meaning that if, as here, he had insured 

a vehicle with another insurance company and was a named insured on that 

policy, NJM would not provide UIM coverage for the use of that vehicle. In 

that context, the second sentence, stating an exception to the exclusion, for 

"minimum" limits required by law, would not lead a reasonable reader to believe 

that NJM would provide $500,000 in UIM coverage for the use of such a vehicle. 

Moreover, in Worldwide, the exclusion denied the insured one of the most 

central and legally-required benefits of auto insurance – liability coverage – in 

a way that the average reasonable consumer would not expect. By contrast, 

here, it should have come as no surprise to plaintiff that NJM would not provide 
8

A-0106-17T2

UIM coverage when he was riding a motorcycle for which he had purchased 

separate coverage from another insurer, particularly when the NJM policy 

explicitly stated that it did not cover vehicles with fewer than four wheels (e.g., 

motorcycles). See DiOrio v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co., 79 N.J. 257, 269-70 (1979) 

(upholding an exclusion for a regularly-used vehicle that was not listed on the 

policy). 

While we do not conclude that the result here is required by public policy, 

as opposed to by the clear wording of the A.7 clause, it is consistent with the

purpose of the UIM statute, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(b). That statute limits the 

purchase of UIM coverage to the amount of liability insurance the insured has 

purchased. Ibid.; see Aubrey v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 140 N.J. 397, 402 (1995). 

Thus, an insured can obtain more UIM coverage by buying more liability 

insurance. This provides greater protection for both the insured and anyone the 

insured injures with his or her vehicle. In buying only a minimum-liability 

policy for his motorcycle, which was his only liability coverage for that vehicle, 

plaintiff provided only $15,000 in liability protection for himself and in 

potential financial recovery for anyone he injured with his motorcycle. We 
9

A-0106-17T2

perceive no violation of public policy in limiting plaintiff to UIM coverage equal 

to the liability insurance he purchased for the motorcycle.

6

 

Plaintiff's reliance on Universal is also misplaced. Universal was a 

dispute between two insurance companies. 299 N.J. Super. at 310-11. In that 

case, as here, the insured had an NJM liability policy covering his automobiles 

but not his motorcycle, which was separately insured by Universal Underwriters 

Insurance Co. (Universal). Id. at 311. The insured got into an accident while 

riding his motorcycle, and Universal claimed that NJM should contribute to his 

UIM coverage. Ibid. As here, the liability section of the NJM policy excluded 

liability coverage for motorcycles, i.e., for motorized vehicles with fewer than 

four wheels. Id. at 311-12. However, unlike this case, in Universal, the UIM 

section of the NJM policy had no exclusion for injury to an insured while using 

a vehicle insured under another policy. Id. at 313-15.

Under those circumstances, the court rejected NJM's argument that either 

the coverage parity provisions of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(b), or the motorcycle 

 

6

 We need not reach, and do not intend to address, factual situations not 

presented in this case. We remind readers that this opinion is unpublished, is 

not precedential, and per Rule 1:36-3, should not be cited by any court. See

Wright v. Bank of America, N.A., __ N.J. Super. __, __ n.5 (App. Div. 2018) 

(slip op. at 8 n.5). 
10 A-0106-17T2

exclusion provision in the liability section of the policy would operate to limit 

the insured's right to UIM coverage for the motorcycle accident.7Id. at 318,

322-23. The court concluded:

[S]ince NJM's policy provides UIM coverage for 

injuries sustained by an insured in an accident with an 

underinsured motorist, regardless of whether the 

vehicle the insured is occupying is insured under its 

policy, and NJM by its policy terms agrees to share in 

the loss if other insurance is applicable, NJM must 

participate in the loss.

[Id. at 315.]

Universal is not on point here, because the NJM policy in this case has an 

unambiguous exclusion for situations where the insured is using a vehicle he 

owns, on which he is the named insured on another insurance policy. For that 

reason, plaintiff's argument that UIM coverage is "linked to the injured person, 

not the covered vehicle," is unavailing. (quoting Aubrey, 140 N.J. at 403). In 

this case, the policy language specifically excludes UIM coverage to the injured 

 

7

Judge Landau's concurring opinion noted that, in effect, the insured "may have 

succeeded in buying UIM coverage for motorcycle accidents at regular 

automobile rates, without the knowledge of the automobile liability carrier." Id.

at 323. Judge Landau suggested that the NJM policy could have included 

language specifically limiting its UIM coverage to "accidents for which liability 

coverage also exists" under the NJM policy. Id. at 324. He concurred in the 

result because there was no such limiting language. 
11 A-0106-17T2

person, albeit based on his use of a vehicle which he insured under a separate 

policy. 

Affirmed.