Tyrell Hardy, by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem Vera Dowdell, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Humza Abdul-Matin, Merrick…

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the plain, unambiguous language of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-7(b)(2) and the corresponding exclusion in Liberty's policy bars the plaintiff, a juvenile passenger, from receiving Personal Injury Protection benefits because he occupied a stolen vehicle without the owner's permission. The Court reversed in part the Appellate Division and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Liberty. Justice LONG dissented, arguing that a scienter requirement should apply to innocent passengers.