The plaintiff pedestrian was injured by a motor vehicle driven without the owner's consent.
She sought a declaration of entitlement to uninsured automobile coverage under the owner's insurance policy.
The insurer argued the claim should be directed to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund due to a policy exclusion for vehicles operated without consent.
The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in finding the Insurance Act provided a complete code.
The policy's exclusion clause validly excluded coverage for the plaintiff, leaving her to resort to the Fund.
