# Transport of New Jersey v. Watler

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · April 10, 1979 · 79 N.J. 400

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1463023

## Case

- **Full name:** Transport of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carlos Watler, Defendant, and Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund Board, Defendant-Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** April 10, 1979
- **Citations:** 79 N.J. 400; 400 A.2d 61; 1979 N.J. LEXIS 1207
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 30 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1463023

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting certificate of self-insurance is "policy” for purposes of UIM required for all vehicles

## Opinion text

*401
Per Curiam.
We affirm essentially for the reasons stated in Judge Botter’s opinion, subject to the following comments. Transport of New Jersey (TNJ), as a self-insurer, is not a “qualified person” under
N. J. 8. A.
39 :6 — 63 and thus is not entitled to recover from the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Eund. The certificate of self-insurance issued to TNJ pursuant to
N. J. 8. A.
39:6" — 53 is a “policy” under which TNJ is insured for purposes of
N. J. S. A.
39:6-62. Incorporated within this “policy” of self-insurance is the uninsured motorist coverage required of all motor vehicle insurance policies by
N. J. S. A.
17:28-l.l.
Of. Comorote v. Massey,
110
N. J. Super.
124, 127-128 (Law Div. 1970) (self-insurer must provide the omnibus coverage required of all insurance policies by
N. J. 8. A.
39 :6-46 (a)).
We affirm the judgment setting aside the order for payment from the Eund and we affirm the remand to the trial court to permit plaintiff to proceed against Watler. In those proceedings plaintiff shall have leave to prove that there had been a waiver of the sufficiency of service of process on defendant Watler. See
B.
4:6-7.
Affirmed, as modified.
For affirmance as
modified^-Chief Justice Hughes and Justices Mountain, Sullivan, Pashman, Clieeord, Sohreiber and Handler — 7.
For reversal
— None.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1463023. Public record. Not legal advice.