A New Jersey court has ordered a new trial in the case of Jorge Guillen, who was seeking uninsured motorist (UM) benefits from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company after a serious truck accident. The court's decision, made on October 28, 2026, comes after the original trial court dismissed Guillen's complaint, stating that he had not made reasonable efforts to identify a phantom vehicle that allegedly caused the accident. This ruling affects Guillen's estate, now represented by Marlenis Almonte, and could have broader implications for similar cases involving uninsured motorist claims.

The dispute began when Guillen was involved in a truck accident on November 19, 2019, in Hartland, Vermont. While driving in snowy conditions, his vehicle jackknifed and struck another vehicle. Following the accident, Vermont State Trooper Sean Collins issued a speeding ticket to Guillen, attributing the accident to his excessive speed and the weather conditions. However, Guillen claimed that another vehicle had cut him off, leading to the crash. He suffered severe head trauma and was hospitalized multiple times after the incident.

At the time of the accident, Guillen held a commercial insurance policy with National Independent Truckers Insurance Company and a personal policy with Liberty Mutual, both of which included UM coverage. After Liberty denied his claim for UM benefits in April 2020, Guillen filed a complaint seeking to compel arbitration. His case faced delays, including his death on December 31, 2021, due to unrelated health issues. Following his death, the complaint was amended to reflect Almonte as the administrator of his estate.

The case eventually went to trial, where Liberty argued that Guillen failed to make reasonable efforts to identify the phantom vehicle. The trial court initially denied Liberty's summary judgment motion, citing the unique circumstances of Guillen's condition after the accident. However, during the trial, the court excluded key evidence, including Guillen's interrogatory answers and testimony from his chiropractor regarding statements Guillen made about the accident.

Ultimately, the trial court granted Liberty's motion for involuntary dismissal, concluding that there was not even a "scintilla of evidence" to support a finding that Guillen made reasonable efforts to identify the phantom vehicle. Almonte's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the appeal.

The appellate court reviewed the case and found that the trial court's dismissal was erroneous. The court stated, "The involuntary dismissal of plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 4:37-2(b) was erroneous and plaintiff's proofs should have been submitted to the jury." The judges emphasized that whether Guillen's actions constituted reasonable efforts to identify the phantom vehicle was a factual issue that should have been decided by a jury.

In its ruling, the appellate court noted that the law does not prescribe a specific standard for what constitutes reasonable efforts in every case. Instead, it stated that the determination should depend on the circumstances surrounding each case. The court referenced previous cases that support the idea that a claimant's failure to undertake certain investigative measures does not necessarily prevent recovery if those efforts would have been futile.

The appellate court also addressed evidentiary issues, stating that the trial court's exclusion of Guillen's interrogatory answers and other testimony was not justified. The judges pointed out that the trial court's decision to exclude evidence based on trustworthiness and credibility should not have precluded the jury from hearing the full scope of the case.

As a result of the appellate court's decision, the October 9, 2024, and February 14, 2025, orders were vacated, and the case was remanded for a new trial. The court instructed that the trial should consider the evidentiary issues raised in the appeal, allowing for a more comprehensive examination of the facts surrounding Guillen's accident and the subsequent claims for UM benefits.

This ruling could have significant implications for future cases involving uninsured motorist claims, as it reinforces the idea that courts should allow juries to evaluate the reasonableness of a claimant's actions in the context of the specific circumstances surrounding an accident.

Looking ahead, the case can be retried in the lower court, where the jury will have the opportunity to hear all relevant evidence and make a determination regarding Guillen's claim for UM benefits against Liberty Mutual. The outcome of the new trial will be closely watched, as it may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.