In Longo v. Market Transition Facility, 326 N.J. Super. 316, 741 A.2d 149 (App.Div.1999), the Court held that where an individual sustains injuries arising out of the operation of an otherwise insured vehicle under circumstances "amounting to theft or the like," Id. at 321, 741 A.2d 149, the vehicle is rendered uninsured for the purpose of triggering the UM endorsement of the automobile's insurance policy. Longo involved injuries sustained by the plaintiff when her car was operated by an unknown person and crashed into another vehicle while plaintiff was asleep from intoxication in the passenger seat. The individual operating the car was never identified. Because the vehicle was being operated under circumstances amounting to theft, the liability provision of plaintiff's policy did not apply. As a result, even though the plaintiff owned and insured the vehicle, it fit within the definition of an uninsured motor vehicle as set forth in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1e(2). Id. at 321, 741 A.2d 149. We conclude that the reasoning of Longo applies in this case to render plaintiff's carjacked vehicle uninsured. Indeed, in dicta the Longo court gave the following as an example in support of its argument: Almost weekly, our newspapers relate an event similar to the following: a woman entering her vehicle in a darkened parking lot is accosted by a stranger intent on stealing the vehicle. The thief pushes the woman into the vehicle and drives off with the victim as a passenger. The thief then crashes the vehicle into an object and runs from the scene, leaving the victim seriously injured. Could the Legislature possibly have intended the insured victim in such circumstances to be left without recourse? We think not. Id. at 322-23, 741 A.2d 149.