Driver of Minivan Used as School Bus Entitled to PIP Benefits
In the case of Taveras v. Roman, 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1728 (App. Div. July 16, 2014), the court had to decide on appeal whether a minivan that is used as a school vehicle falls under the definition of “automobile” under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(a). The plaintiff Angela Taveras was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving home in a minivan owned by her employer, School Tyme Transportation. She applied for PIP benefits from her personal insurer (CURE) who denied her application.
CURE filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting an order that Taveras was not entitled to PIP benefits because the vehicle she was operating was not an “automobile” as defined in the statute. The trial court judge denied the motion. He made no finding as to whether the vehicle qualified as an “automobile.” Instead, he focused on its use at the time of the accident, which was for the plaintiff’s personal use.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order. However, its decision was based upon the classification of the vehicle, not its use.
School Tyme contracted with various school districts for the transportation of special needs children to and from school. It allowed Taveras to use one of the minivans for travel to and from work and to keep the minivan overnight. The collision occurred after the end of her work day, as she was driving home. The minivan’s rear bumper was clearly marked with the words “SCHOOL VEHICLE” and its license plate showed that it had commercial vehicle plates.
The meaning of the term of “automobile in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2 focuses first on the type of vehicle and then its use. The statute establishes two categories of vehicles subject to PIP coverage. The first category applies to “a private passenger automobile of a private passenger or station wagon type.” This is to distinguish it from public passenger automobiles, such as taxis and from private freight automobiles, such as trucks.
A minivan would be considered to be a “station wagon type automobile.” Thus, it falls into the first of the categories of automobiles in the statute. Hence, it is not relevant whether it is used for business purposes.
However, CURE argued that the minivan is not an “automobile” because it is a school bus under N.J.S.A. 39:1-1. The Appellate Division found that “school buses” are not excluded from the definition of “automobile.” Hence, the appeals court found that the minivan driven by Taveras was an automobile under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(a) and CURE may not deny her PIP benefits.
redbanknaacp
Stephen Gilbert
Tom Begley
Connect With Capehart Scatchard