TPMDC
Christie Says He Was Never Served With Lawsuit Over 2002 Car Accident
NJ Gov. Chris Christie (R)
Share
Send to a friend!
Chris Christie is clearing up a seemingly false statement that he made on Friday, when he said that there had not been a lawsuit over his 2002 car accident in which he injured a motorcyclist after he turned the wrong way onto a one-way street.
In fact, the man that Christie hit, Andre Mendcona, had filed a lawsuit in 2004. It was dismissed two months later, implying a possible out-of-court settlement. For his part, Christie has now told NJN's Zachary Fink that he'd never actually been served with the lawsuit.
Mendonca's attorney Stanley Marcus told me that, without going into private details that would require the permission of his client, he never actually interacted with Christie. "I didn't talk to him, he didn't talk to me," said Marcus. "He may have talked to the insurance company."
Comments (3) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Zell
September 8, 2009 6:56 PM
It depends what the meaning of "is" is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david46
September 8, 2009 7:03 PM
I am not familiar with NJ law in this area, but in some other states here is what happens. When there is an accident which is a probable, conpensable event, the insurance carriers of both parties are provided to all parties by the police. It is also quite possible for a plaintiff's attorney to obtain the information from the DMV. Insurance companies have a major interest in knowing about potential claims, and they especially want to know about law suits against their clients. The last thing they want is to end up with a default judgement which they may have to pay. I would not be surprised that NJ law or regulations allows (or maybe requires) that where there is an insurance company for a defendant, service is accomplished by serving the insurance carrier and it is not required to serve the actual tortfeasor. The advantage of such a requirement if good for both sides: the plaintiff gets the attention of the proper insurance carrier and gets them in court, and the insurance carrier does not have to worry about its client "misplacing" the summons and forgetting to tell them about it. I seem to recall that Christie was driving a rental, and that means the summons was probably served on the insurance carrier and the rental company.
Christie may not have been personally served, but he is being, at best, disingenuous. The insurance carrier at some point thoroughly questioned him. There should be no doubt that Christie was significantly involved in the case -- at least in the background. The apparent confidentiality clause in the settlement is highly unusual in auto accident cases in the states with which I am familiar. Christie had to insist on that clause and persuade the insurance carrier to pay extra for it--no self-respecting plaintiff's lawyer would give that clause away for free.
The question is now whether Christie used his position as US Attorney to coerce the insurance carrier to pay extra for that clause.
Maybe a NJ attorney can provide more insight on their practices.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david46
September 8, 2009 7:27 PM in reply to david46
A couple of more points. According to NJN, the police took Christie to HIS lawyer's office.
The machinations started immediately.
An insurance carrier typically insists upon using its lawyers, not those of its insured. This went on for several years, and I recall that Christie is not "wealthy." It appears that his attorney racked up some "billable hours." Who paid his fee? To my knowlege, insurance carriers in many states are under no obligation to pay them. If Christie got them for "free" or if the insurance carrier paid them even though it was not obligated to do so, then Christie received a reportable gift which he had to report to the Justice Department and maybe the IRS as well.
This is getting interesting. [Given the Justice has some sort of investigation going on, Christie may be protected by AG Holder's rectitude: i.e., the Jusitce guideline NOT to let its investigations impact an election by taking public action in close proximity to an election. Rather ironic that this sleazebag may be protected by the very procedure he so egregiously violated.]
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?