Plaintiff Robert Calderone (“Calderone”) claimed to have been injured as a result of an automobile accident with the defendant Michael DeFeo II (“DeFeo”). After Calderone sued DeFeo for his injuries, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting a dismissal on the basis that plaintiff’s injuries did not satisfy the verbal threshold (also known as “the lawsuit threshold”). The issue presented to the trial court in Calderone v. DeFeo, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2192 (Law Div. Sept. 28, 2018) was whether plaintiff was subject to the verbal threshold of his domestic partner with whom he had resided for the past 38 years.
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit after being rear-ended by DeFeo’s vehicle. He claimed that he was not bound by the lawsuit limitation set forth in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a. If not, he would not be required to show that he suffered a serious bodily injury, as defined by this statute (the “verbal threshold” or “limitation on lawsuit” option.) Plaintiff argued that he was not subject to the verbal threshold of his domestic partner, Joseph Amorino (“Amorino”), despite living together for the past 38 years and being listed on Amorino’s insurance policy as a member of the household. Calderone claimed that because they had not entered into a civil marriage, he did not qualify as either Amorino’s “spouse” or “immediate family member residing with the insured.” Thus, he argued that he should be entitled to pursue his personal injury claim against the defendant without being subject to the lawsuit threshold.
The trial judge rejected these arguments. The court stated that the terms of the insurance policy control this issue. He noted that Amorino’s Plymouth Rock insurance policy included within the definition of a family member “a lawfully recognized civil union under New Jersey law or adoption and resides in your household.” Further, the policy defines a named insured to include a spouse or “a Domestic partner who is registered as such under any states domestic partner or civil union law.”
Also, Calderone is listed on the Declarations page as a “Licensed Operator Resident in Your Household.” Calderone did not have his own insurance. He was apparently added onto Amorino’s policy to provide coverage for him. The trial judge found that it was objectively reasonable to infer that Amorino’s addition of Calderone as a member of his household was because he intended to cover him as well.
The trial judge found that the interpretation of an insurance policy was a determination to be made by the court and the Declarations page of a policy was to be given significant weight. The court judge found that the terms of the policy included both domestic partners, as well as spouses, within the definition of an insured. Because the policy specifically included domestic partners as insureds, the plaintiff did not need to be married to Amorino to be covered by his policy. Therefore, the court concluded that Calderone was included in Amorino’s insurance policy as a domestic partner and was bound by the lawsuit limitation as well.
