In a previous article we had discussed potential NCAA violations which could adversely affect your son or daughter.

As previously discussed, these violations can be committed by many different people including the athlete, the parents, coaches, school administrators, school boosters and agents among others. However, recently headlines were made out of the Olympics and the potential for an NCAA violation which was adverted.

I am specifically referring to the five members of US Women’s Olympic Gold Medal Ice Hockey Team whom may not appear on the Wheaties cereal box with their teammates. The five excluded were Tara Mounsey, Sara DeCosta, A.G. Mleczko, Angela Ruggiero and Jenny Schmidgall. The youngest of this group, Ruggiero, was a senior in high school and awaiting a full college hockey scholarship this fall.

The reason they could not appear on the Wheaties box was because NCAA rules prohibit the athlete from accepting any commercial sponsorships if they wish to continue playing college sports. Even though the players could have appeared on the box for free or possibly even donated any receipts their appearance on the box to charity, the NCAA rules do not allow athletes to use their names, photographs or otherwise to be used by anyone for financial gain.

Although this might seem very harsh and disingenuous, given the fact the respective schools make money from the athletes appearances, these are the rules.

Should you have any concerns regarding your son or daughter, please contact a knowledgeable attorney in the area of NCAA law or contact our office for advice.

Ordinarily, a motorcyclist claim for personal injury is not subject to the verbal threshold. One of the reasons for this is that motorcycle insurance policies often do not carry personal injury protection (PIP) insurance coverage. However, in the case of Koff v. Carubba, the Appellate Division for the State of New Jersey held that the verbal threshold may apply to injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident if the injured individual was; 1) the named insured under a New Jersey automobile insurance policy for which the verbal threshold was chosen, 2) he/she was either a person required to maintain PIP coverage as the owner, operator or registrant of an automobile, principally garaged in New Jersey or, alternatively, was a person entitled to receive PIP benefits and 3) the Defendant was the owner, operator, registrant or occupant of an automobile and the Plaintiff’s claim allegedly rose of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of that automobile.

The harshness of this decision is reflected in the Court’s own ruling that Mr. Koff did not have the right to receive PIP benefits as a result of the injuries he received in this accident as he was not occupying, entering or leaving an automobile when he was injured. Thus, the Court concluded that since alternate criteria could be met to apply the harsh verbal threshold despite the fact that PIP coverage was not available to Mr. Koff, it would be applied.

All those operating a motorcycle who may fit into the criteria as set forth by the Appellate Division should take the appropriate steps to make sure that they have sufficient insurance coverage for their personal injuries in both uninsured and underinsured limits, as well as PIP benefits.

Also, if the motorcyclist owns an automobile the selection of No Threshold will prevent the application of the Verbal Threshold.

The other alternative is to take the appropriate steps to make sure that a motorcyclist does not fall into the criteria as outlined by the Courts. This, however, is a far more difficult solution than assuring that the operator has proper insurance coverage.