arrow left
arrow right
  • Progressive Garden S Tate Vs Matlock, Jr. ChesteAuto Negligence-Property Damage document preview
  • Progressive Garden S Tate Vs Matlock, Jr. ChesteAuto Negligence-Property Damage document preview
  • Progressive Garden S Tate Vs Matlock, Jr. ChesteAuto Negligence-Property Damage document preview
  • Progressive Garden S Tate Vs Matlock, Jr. ChesteAuto Negligence-Property Damage document preview
  • Progressive Garden S Tate Vs Matlock, Jr. ChesteAuto Negligence-Property Damage document preview
  • Progressive Garden S Tate Vs Matlock, Jr. ChesteAuto Negligence-Property Damage document preview
  • Progressive Garden S Tate Vs Matlock, Jr. ChesteAuto Negligence-Property Damage document preview
  • Progressive Garden S Tate Vs Matlock, Jr. ChesteAuto Negligence-Property Damage document preview
						
                                

Preview

SSX-L-000015-24 01/08/2024 5:59:34 PM Pg 1 of 7 Trans ID: LCV202465255 Keron E. Hoetzel, Attorney ID# 379382021 Insurer of Defendant(s): Jan Meyer, Attorney ID# 020391994 None known. Law Offices of Jan Meyer & Associates, P.C. 1029 Teaneck Road Second Floor Teaneck, New Jersey 07666 (201) 862-9500 Attorneys for Plaintiffs O ur File N um ber: 21-3920841-1 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Progressive Garden State Insurance LAW DIVISION: SUSSEX COUNTY Company and Progressive Garden State Insurance Company as subrogee Docket No.: of Walter J. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Civil Action Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT -against- Chester J. Matlock, Jr. and Laurence B. Wells, Defendants. Plaintiffs, Progressive Garden State Insurance Company and Progressive Garden State Insurance Company as subrogee of Walter J. Fitzpatrick, Jr., say: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Progressive Garden State Insurance Company [hereinafter “Plaintiff”] is located at 5920 Landerbrook Drive, Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124 and does business in Sussex County. 2. Walter J. Fitzpatrick, Jr. [hereinafter “Plaintiff’s insured”] resides in Lyndhurst, NJ 07071. 3. Hereinafter, Plaintiffs, Progressive Garden State Insurance Company and SSX-L-000015-24 01/08/2024 5:59:34 PM Pg 2 of 7 Trans ID: LCV202465255 Progressive Garden State Insurance Company as subrogee of Walter J. Fitzpatrick, Jr., are referred to individually and/or collectively as "Plaintiffs." 4. Defendant Chester J. Matlock, Jr.resides at 302 Schoolhouse road, Monroe Township, NJ 08831. 5. Defendant Laurence B. Wells resides at 6 Romney Road, Bound Brook, NJ 08805. 6. Hereinafter, the above-named Defendants are referred to individually and/or collectively as “Defendants.” FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL COUNTS 7. Plaintiff is in the business of automobile insurance. 8. Plaintiff’s insured is the insured under a certain policy issued by Plaintiff. 9. At all times relevant, Plaintiff’s insured owned a black 2016 Volkswagen Passat [hereinafter “Plaintiff's insured's vehicle"]. 10. On or about September 12, 2021, Plaintiff's Insured was operating the aforementioned vehicle at Branchville, New Jersey while traveling northbound on State Highway 15. 11. At the same aforementioned time and place, Defendant Chester J. Matlock, Jr. was operating a black 2013 Chevrolet Impala [hereinafter "Defendants’ vehicle"] while traveling southbound on State Highway 15. 12. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant, Defendants’ vehicle was owned, rented, and/or leased by Chester J. Matlock, Jr. and/or Laurence B. Wells. 13. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant, Defendant Chester J. SSX-L-000015-24 01/08/2024 5:59:34 PM Pg 3 of 7 Trans ID: LCV202465255 Matlock, Jr. was an employee, agent, and/or servant of Laurence B. Wells. 14. At the same aforementioned time and place, Defendant Chester J. Matlock, Jr. operated said vehicle in such an, including, but not limited to, careless and/or negligent manner, so as to drive inattentively and fail to maintain directional control, causing a collision with the Plaintiff’s insured's vehicle. 15. In addition, or in the alternative, upon information and belief, Defendants were negligent in maintaining said vehicle and/or in causing said vehicle to be operated while it was not in proper working order. 16. As a result of Defendants’ actions or omissions, Plaintiff’s insured sustained property damage. 17. As a result of Defendants’ actions or omissions, Plaintiff paid claims as follows: Property damage $6,057.63 Deductible $750.00 TOTAL $6,807.63 18. In addition, or in the alternative to the above stated proximate cause(s) of Plaintiffs’ injuries, Defendants had a duty to insure Defendants’ vehicle and/or not to operate an uninsured vehicle. 19. Upon information and belief, Defendants negligently and/or recklessly caused said vehicle's operation while said vehicle was not insured as per relevant law. 20. Had Defendants properly insured Defendants’ vehicle as per relevant law, Plaintiffs would have been able to recover damages from said insurance policy. SSX-L-000015-24 01/08/2024 5:59:34 PM Pg 4 of 7 Trans ID: LCV202465255 FIRST COUNT (Negligence) 21. Plaintiffs repeat each prior paragraph of the Complaint with the same force and effect as if set forth fully herein. 22. Defendants owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiff’s insured. 23. Defendants breached said duty. 24. As a result of Defendants’ actions or omissions, Plaintiff's insured(s) sustained $6,807.63 in damages. 25. As a result of Defendants’ actions or omissions, Plaintiff paid claims in the amount of $6,807.63. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against all Defendants jointly, severally, and in the alternative, as follows: A. $6,807.63 plus future amounts if any; B. Compelling arbitration or other appropriate dispute resolution for any matters required to be thus resolved pursuant to relevant statute, regulation and/or contractual agreements; C. Costs of Suit; D. Attorney Fees; E. Indemnification; F. Contribution; G. Other relief as the Court may deem equitable and just. SECOND COUNT (Liability Of Vehicle Ow ners) 26. Plaintiffs repeat each prior paragraph of the Complaint with the same force SSX-L-000015-24 01/08/2024 5:59:34 PM Pg 5 of 7 Trans ID: LCV202465255 and effect as if set forth fully herein. 27. Laurence B. Wells entrusted Defendants' vehicle to Defendant Chester J. Matlock, Jr. when Laurence B. Wells knew or should have known Chester J. Matlock, Jr. was incompetent, unfit, inexperienced, or reckless. 28. Entrusting said vehicle to Defendant Chester J. Matlock, Jr. created an appreciable risk of harm to others. 29. In addition, or in the alternative, Defendant Chester J. Matlock, Jr. is presumed to be the agent of Laurence B. Wells, because Defendant Chester J. Matlock, Jr. operated Defendants' vehicle. See Hernandez v. Velez, 267 N.J. Super. 353, 356 (Law. Div. 1993) and Harvey v. Craw, 110 N.J. Super. 68, 73, (App.Div. 1970). 30. Hence, Laurence B. Wells is liable for the actions and/or inactions of Chester J. Matlock, Jr. in the use or operation of said vehicle. 31. As a result of Defendants’ actions or omissions, Plaintiff's insured(s) sustained $6,807.63 in damages. 32. As a result of Defendants’ actions or omissions, Plaintiff paid claims in the amount of $6,807.63. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against all Defendants jointly, severally, and in the alternative, as follows: A. $6,807.63 plus future amounts if any; B. Compelling arbitration or other appropriate dispute resolution for any matters required to be thus resolved pursuant to relevant statute, regulation and/or contractual agreements; C. Costs of Suit; SSX-L-000015-24 01/08/2024 5:59:34 PM Pg 6 of 7 Trans ID: LCV202465255 D. Attorney Fees; E. Indemnification; F. Contribution; G. Other relief as the Court may deem equitable and just. Dated: January 8, 2024 Law Offices of Jan Meyer and Associates, P.C. Keron E. Hoetzel, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1029 Teaneck Road, Second Floor Teaneck, New Jersey 07666 DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Pursuant to Rules of Court, notice is hereby given that Jan Meyer, Esq., is designated as trial counsel in the above captioned matter. Dated: January 8, 2024 Law Offices of Jan Meyer and Associates, P.C. Keron E. Hoetzel, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1029 Teaneck Road, Second Floor Teaneck, New Jersey 07666 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Rule 4:5-1, it is hereby stated that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other civil action pending in any court or of a pending arbitration proceeding, to the best of our knowledge or belief; also to the best of our belief, no other action or SSX-L-000015-24 01/08/2024 5:59:34 PM Pg 7 of 7 Trans ID: LCV202465255 arbitration proceeding is contemplated. Further, other than the parties set forth in this pleading, we know of no other parties that should be joined in the above action. In addition, we recognize the continuing obligation of each party to file and serve on all parties and the court an amended certification if there is a change in the facts stated in this original certification. Dated: January 8, 2024 Law Offices of Jan Meyer and Associates, P.C. Keron E. Hoetzel, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1029 Teaneck Road, Second Floor Teaneck, New Jersey 07666 SSX-L-000015-24 01/08/2024 SSX-L-000015-24 01/08/20245:59:34 5:59:34PM PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans TransID: ID:LCV202465255 LCV202465255 Civil Case Information Statement Case Details: SUSSEX | Civil Part Docket# L-000015-24 Case Caption: PROGRESSIVE GARDEN S TATE VS Case Type: AUTO NEGLIGENCE-PROPERTY DAMAGE MATLOCK, JR. CHESTE Document Type: Complaint Case Initiation Date: 01/08/2024 Jury Demand: NONE Attorney Name: KERON E HOETZEL Is this a professional malpractice case? NO Firm Name: JAN MEYER & ASSOCIATES, PC Related cases pending: NO Address: 1029 TEANECK RD 2ND FL If yes, list docket numbers: TEANECK NJ 07666 Do you anticipate adding any parties (arising out of same Phone: 2018629500 transaction or occurrence)? NO Name of Party: PLAINTIFF : Progressive Garden State Does this case involve claims related to COVID-19? NO Name of Defendant’s Primary Insurance Company (if known): Unknown Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: Progressive Garden State? NO Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: Progressive Garden State? NO THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION Do parties have a current, past, or recurrent relationship? NO If yes, is that relationship: Does the statute governing this case provide for payment of fees by the losing party? NO Use this space to alert the court to any special case characteristics that may warrant individual management or accelerated disposition: Do you or your client need any disability accommodations? NO If yes, please identify the requested accommodation: Will an interpreter be needed? NO If yes, for what language: Please check off each applicable category: Putative Class Action? NO Title 59? NO Consumer Fraud? NO Medical Debt Claim? NO I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b) SSX-L-000015-24 01/08/2024 SSX-L-000015-24 01/08/20245:59:34 5:59:34PM PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans TransID: ID:LCV202465255 LCV202465255 01/08/2024 /s/ KERON E HOETZEL Dated Signed