SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3664-19

CHARLES J. KRAUT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ERICA F. DIGIOVANNI,

Defendant-Respondent.

Submitted March 1, 2021 – Decided April 21, 2021

Before Judges Currier and Gooden Brown.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-5384-19.

Alfred J. Petit-Clair, Jr., attorney for appellant.

Miriam R. Rubin, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff brought this suit against defendant for personal injuries he 

sustained in a motor vehicle accident. At the time, plaintiff was driving a Ford 

Econoline Wagon that was titled to him in New Jersey but not registered or 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3664-19

insured. Because plaintiff had not insured the vehicle, defendant moved for 

summary judgment, asserting plaintiff was precluded from pursuing his claims 

for economic and non-economic damages under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5.

In opposing the motion, plaintiff presented several arguments: (1) he was 

not the owner of the vehicle; (2) the wagon was not a "motor vehicle" as defined 

under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(a); and (3) he thought his employer had insured the 

vehicle. Therefore, plaintiff argued he was exempt from the strictures of 

N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5.

The trial court granted summary judgment. The May 8, 2020 order stated: 

"If . . . [p]laintiff can provide proof that the vehicle actually was insured, the 

[c]ourt will entertain a motion to vacate this order." 

On appeal, plaintiff renews his arguments. Because the trial court did not 

give any reasons for its decision as required under Rule 1:7-4(a), we are 

constrained to vacate the order and remand for further proceedings.

Rule 1:7-4(a) states that a trial judge "shall, by an opinion or memorandum 

decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state [his or her] conclusions 

of law thereon in all actions tried without a jury . . . ." "The rule requires specific 

findings of fact and conclusions of law." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J.
3

A-3664-19

Court Rules, cmt. 1 on R. 1:7-4 (2018). See also R. 4:46-2(c) ("The court shall 

find the facts and state its conclusions in accordance with R. 1:7-4."). 

Here, defendant raised a statutory bar to plaintiff's claim for damages. In 

response, plaintiff presented several arguments. The trial court did not make 

any findings of fact or analysis of the applicable law to explain the grant of 

summary judgment. As our Court has stated, the "[f]ailure to perform that duty

'constitutes a disservice to the litigants, the attorneys and the appellate court.'"

Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980) (quoting Kenwood Assocs. v.

Bd. of Adj. Englewood, 141 N.J. Super. 1, 4 (App. Div. 1976)). "Naked

conclusions do not satisfy the purpose of R[ule] 1:7-4. Rather, the trial court

must state clearly its factual findings and correlate them with the relevant legal

conclusions." Id. at 570.

Therefore, we vacate the order for summary judgment and remand to the 

trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with Rule

1:7-4(a). The parties shall provide their appellate submissions to the court 

within twenty days of the date of this opinion.

Reversed, vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.