Kurt Lindstrom, by His Guardian Ad Litem, George K. Lindstrom, and George K. Lindstrom

Summary

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff is entitled to personal‑injury‑protection benefits because the drive‑by shooting was an accident within the scope of N.J.S.A. 39:6A‑4 and satisfied the substantial‑nexus test. The Court emphasized a liberal construction of the statute, while noting that the holding is limited to random drive‑by shootings. Justice Pollock dissented, arguing that the automobile was not a sufficient nexus and that the majority overextends PIP coverage.