A New Jersey appellate court, reversing a trial court's decision, has ruled that a jury must determine whether an insured who alleged that he had been kidnapped was entitled to recover uninsured motorist (“UM”) benefits for the injuries he said he suffered.
The Case
Jeffrey A. Wichot alleged that he was kidnapped by a friend and two other individuals who held him at gunpoint and drove him in his own car to banks to withdraw money from his accounts. In the course of the incident, Mr. Wichot asserted, the three assailants repeatedly beat him, throwing him against the car and hitting him with the gun.
The three alleged assailants were not insured, and Mr. Wichot notified his own automobile insurer, Allstate New Jersey Property & Casualty Insurance Company, seeking to recover UM benefits.
Allstate rejected his claim and Mr. Wichot sued.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate, and Mr. Wichot appealed.
The Appellate Court's Decision
The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding disputed issues of material fact.
In its decision, the appellate court found that, giving Mr. Wichot the benefit of all reasonable inferences:
- Mr. Wichot was kidnapped by being placed in his vehicle and locked inside;
- The assailants then drove erratically and treacherously with Mr. Wichot inside the vehicle;
- After removing Mr. Wichot from the vehicle, the attackers threw him against the car;
- At the conclusion of the attack, the assailant who was driving crashed the car into a wall and it started to smoke; and
- At that point, Mr. Wichot able to escape from the car and seek assistance.
The appellate court reasoned that, without Mr. Wichot's automobile, “this incident arguably never could have happened, and the three assailants could not have held [Mr. Wichot] prisoner in the same fashion that they did.”
The appellate court added that the question of whether there was a “substantial nexus” between the vehicle and Mr. Wichot's injuries was “a disputed question of fact” that could not be resolved summarily. Mr. Wichot, the appellate court continued, was treated at the scene for pain in his knee, neck, and back from the crash, and he contended that he suffered “severe personal injuries after the vehicle he was traveling in slammed into a rock wall, causing him to be violently thrown forward into the vehicle[']s back seat.” The appellate court added that Mr. Wichot also said that he “sustained bruising and severe pain from being repeatedly punched and pistol whipped” and that he also suffered “emotional and psychological injuries.”
The appellate court concluded that because the trial court judge had made credibility determinations on the summary judgment motion, another judge should handle the remand proceedings.
The case is Wichot v. Allstate New Jersey Property and Casualty Ins. Co., No. A -2707-17T3 (N.J. App. Div. April 3, 2019). Attorneys involved include: Demetrios K. Stratis argued the cause for appellant (Ruta, Soulios & Stratis, LLP, attorneys; Demetrios K. Stratis, on the briefs). Frederic J. Regenye argued the cause for respondent (Law Office of Kenneth N. Lipstein, attorneys; Frederic J. Regenye, of counsel and on the brief).
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].