Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

46 STEPHEN J. DELPOME v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 452

... filed its answer, and moved to compel arbitration pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1 and N.J.A.C. 11:3-5.2. In ... right to proceed to arbitration arises from statute, as well. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1 provides: Any dispute regarding the recovery of medical expense benefits ...

docket:	a4017-11
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2012-12-21
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	22030

47 COMPLETE CARE v. GEICO -- rank: 449

... to -19. The APDRA governs DRP matters and procedures. See N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1(a) (authorizing the resolution of disputes between insurers and claimants ...

docket:	a0171-13
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2014-12-11
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	22304

48 ENDO SURGI CENTER, P.C. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 416

... PIP benefits is an award of the interest mandated by N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1. The evident purpose of this provision is to establish an ...

docket:	A1387-06
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2007-04-09
status:	published
citation:	391 N.J. Super. 588 919 A.2d 166
Document Size:	36302

49 ELIZABETH NOVAK v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 397

... S.A. 2A:23A-1 to -30 (APDRA); see also N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1 and N.J.A.C. 11:3-5.1 to ...

docket:	A0356-06
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2007-11-28
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	22866

50 BOUND BROOK FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC v. AMERIPRISE AUTO & HOME INSURANCE -- rank: 386

... PIP benefits may be submitted to alternative dispute resolution. See N.J.S.A. 39:6A- 5.1. The final determination of the arbitrator is binding on the ...

docket:	a2477-15
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2017-11-17
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	13149

51 CALCAGNO & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLC v. THERAPEUTIC DEVICES INC. and MICHAEL GOLOWSKI 2011 - -- rank: 276

... was entitled to reimbursement, the matter would be arbitrated under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1. Plaintiff law firm had represented TDI for a period of ...

docket:	a5726-09
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-06-09
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	12021