Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

31 SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY v. NATIONAL CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 669

... its arbitration claim for PIP benefits against National pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 on September 22, 2003. At the time, both National and ... pursuant to its October 16 request. National also argued that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 limits Selective's recovery to $28,365.40, the available ... the present case, arbitration between two insurance companies, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, does not raise the public policy considerations that warrant broader ... to justify reversal of an award. Instead, it argues that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 confines Selective's recovery to the available limits remaining in ... liability case reduced its available limits to $28,365.40. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, provides in pertinent part: An insurer . . . paying benefits pursuant to ... its insured. Id. at 356. The Legislative intent expressed in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 is to require arbitration between insurers, absent their agreement. ...

docket:	a5019-04
court:	njappellate
decided:	2006-04-27
status:	published
citation:	*CITE_PENDING*
Document Size:	52146

32 KEI NAM PARK VS EUN BAE PARK, DUCK JU KIM, ET AL -- rank: 664

... raised by this appeal is whether the reimbursement provisions of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 apply to personal injury protection benefits (PIP) paid to passengers ... the meantime, Providence, construing the deemer statute as applicable to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 against Hunt and Chaney seeking reimbursement. The two actions were ... scheme and dismissed its complaint. We conclude that it erred.      N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, adopted by L. 1983, c . 362 and most recently amended ... 28-1.6 and, indeed, to amend the earlier adopted N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 expressly to incorporate N.J.S.A. 17:28-1 ... passenger PIP payments would do violence to the legislative scheme.      N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 accords a reimbursement right in respect of all PIP payments ... compelling us to find an amendment by implication of both N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 and 17:28-1.4 to include bus-passenger ...

docket:	a3922-96
court:	njappellate
decided:	1998-03-12
status:	published
citation:	<a href=
Document Size:	17585

33 EMPIRE FIRE and MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. GSA INSURANCE COMPANY, -- rank: 654

... GSA), was successful in its arbitration proceedings brought pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. However, its subsequent complaint seeking confirmation of the arbitration award ... proceedings against Empire for reimbursement of those benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 That statute provides:             An insurer . . . paying . . . personal injury protection benefits ... the involved parties or, upon failing to agree, by arbitration.         [ N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1.]     We pause at this point to correct a misconstruction of ... App. Div. March 22, 2001). We there said that under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1:         if the alleged tortfeasor . . . did not maintain PIP insurance protection ... emphasized language might be understood to reflect a construction of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 that extends reimbursement rights between two PIP carriers, that is ... s vehicle had PIP coverage and that, therefore, reimbursement under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 was not permitted. Characterized as a lack of jurisdiction ...

docket:	a5512-00
court:	njappellate
decided:	2002-10-03
status:	published
citation:	354 N.J. Super. 415
Document Size:	22397

34 MARTIN V. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY V. UNSATISFIED CLAIM AND JUDGMENT FUND -- rank: 652

... vehicle required to maintain the full measure of PIP benefits. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 now allows for reimbursement in certain such instances but requires ...

docket:	a-114-94
court:	njsupreme
decided:	1995-07-31
status:
citation:	141 N.J. 279
Document Size:	46930

35 GEORGE C. EVERETT v. STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY -- rank: 649

... percent reimbursement of all medical and expense payments pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1," on the grounds that State Farm paid out "PIP benefits ...

docket:	a4520-99
court:	njappellate
decided:	2002-12-31
status:	published
citation:	358 N.J. Super. 400
Document Size:	44475

36 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY v. COMMUNITY OPTIONS INC -- rank: 630

... reimbursement of its PIP benefits from Philadelphia Indemnity pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 because, although Community Options was required to maintain insurance with ... seek reimbursement of its PIP payments from it pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. We disagree and affirm the trial court's order. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 provides in pertinent part that an insurer, health maintenance organization ... the involved parties or, upon failing to agree, by arbitration." N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1(b). Here, Philadelphia Indemnity issued a commercial insurance policy to ... a tortfeasor "required" to maintain PIP coverage for purposes of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 because, although it was not required to maintain PIP coverage ... is inconsistent with the language of the statute. By enacting N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, the Legislature intended that an insurer could seek reimbursement ...

docket:	a5904-09
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-06-29
status:	published
citation:	420 N.J. Super. 546 22 A.3d 91
Document Size:	18085

37 SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY v. COACH LEASING, INC. -- rank: 620

... Selective was not entitled to a judgment because pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, Selective's subrogation cause of action lay solely against Coach ... estopped from raising any defenses, including the defense available in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, because it had "insufficient opportunity to raise them in the ... prejudice the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding." N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. For at least two reasons, we view the argument as unpersuasive. First, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 is not a defense to the summary confirmation action because ... not present any grounds for vacating the awards pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, it is well established that "a self-insurer's coverage ... 3) Coach should be estopped from raising any defense under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. We remand the matter to the trial court for ...

docket:	A4007-06
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2008-06-16
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	64130

38 CONNIE & ROBERT KNOX, JR., ET AL., VS LINCOLN GENERAL INSURANCE CO., ET AL -- rank: 608

... N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5. In pertinent part, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 provides as follows: An insurer . . . paying benefits pursuant to [39 ... because it did not notify plaintiffs as "involved parties" under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 of its PIP reimbursement claim made to Lincoln.     Initially, we ... seeking reimbursement from the tortfeasor's commercial carrier pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1.      Otto v. Prudential Prop. and Cas. Co. , 278 N.J ... paid by it within the two-year period required by N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 and was, therefore, barred from such reimbursement. Id. at 179 ... own insured, the plaintiff who had settled, pursuant to former N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 and been reimbursed $75,745 for PIP benefits paid by ... be fully satisfactory.     We find without merit plaintiffs' claim that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 requires decedent's PIP insurer, Harleysville, to put them ...

docket:	a1013-96
court:	njappellate
decided:	1997-09-26
status:	published
citation:	<a href=
Document Size:	17218

39 NEWARK INSURANCE COMPANY v. VALORA'S SECOND CAR CENTER -- rank: 598

... Green and Bordley. Newark Insurance's claims were based on N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, which provides that an automobile insurer that pays PIP benefits ... Insurance's claims against them based on the part of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 that bars a claim for reimbursement of PIP benefits against ... not be subject to a claim for PIP reimbursement under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, which provides in pertinent part: An insurer, . . . paying [PIP] benefits ... injured party's insurer. Moreover, the term "any tortfeasor" in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 is not limited to parties who negligently operate a car ... PIP] benefits coverage . . . at the time of [Green's] accident." N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. In any event, it is clear the Empire policy did ...

docket:	a6085-05
court:	njappellate
decided:	2008-02-22
status:	unpublished
citation:	*CITE_PENDING*
Document Size:	46402

40 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, <br -- rank: 591

... Allstate. Allstate then sought reimbursement for these payments from Universal. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. After making an initial reimbursement payment in 1993, Universal asserted ... reimbursement because, according to Universal, Allstate failed to satisfy the N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 two-year statute of limitations. Allstate then demanded arbitration. After ... the present case, arbitration between two insurance companies, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, does not raise the public policy considerations which warrant broader ... the Law Division judge's statute of limitations decision.                     III.      N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, in pertinent part, requires:         An insurer . . . paying . . . personal injury protection ... the filing of the PIP claim in order to satisfy N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1." There is no question that Allstate did not formally make ... we have indicated that there are two methods reflected in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 to resolve reimbursement disputes between insurers:             The statutory language ...

docket:	a5593-98
court:	njappellate
decided:	2000-05-11
status:	published
citation:	330 N.J.Super. 628
Document Size:	25222

41 SHIRLEY THOMPSON v. CITIZENS UNITED RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE f/k/a NJCURE and PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., L.P -- rank: 588

... s Old Republic coverage arguments were misplaced because pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, CURE had an obligation to bring its PIP claim against ... reimbursement claim against Old Republic, rather than Penske, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. CURE asserted that it had filed a motion to amend ... claim against Penske's carrier rather than Penske, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. CURE argued that Penske, not Old Republic, was the true ... limitations for CURE's PIP reimbursement claim was two years. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 provides in relevant part that: [a]n insurer, health maintenance ... for a defense based on the applicable statute of limitations, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. In reading the PIP statute of limitations, we must give ... four years later), the claim against Penske is barred pursuant N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. 4 Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Penske's ...

docket:	a0656-14
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2016-06-01
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	21617

42 GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY v. JUAN CASTRO -- rank: 576

... seeking reimbursement for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, is an "injured person" for purposes of the tortfeasor's ... Vehicles involved in the auto accident. GEICO argues that because N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 gives PIP carriers a direct right of recovery against non ... reimbursement. We disagree. We explained the history and genesis of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 in IFA Insurance Company v. Waitt , 270 N.J. Super ... Legislature made that limitation express in its 2011 amendment to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, allowing PIP reimbursement only after the tortfeasor's insurer satisfies ... N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1b. Reversed. 1 N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 provides, in pertinent part that a. An insurer . . . paying . . . [PIP ...

docket:	a4452-12
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2014-04-15
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	20354

43 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. STOKES PHARMACY -- rank: 576

... by N.J.S.A. 26:2J-8.1 and N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1; and the trial judge erred in admitting certain testimony and ... argues for the first time on appeal, that nothing in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, permits State Farm to sue a "health provider like Stokes ... argument before the trial judge. We see no relevance of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, which addresses the ability of an insurer paying PIP benefits ...

docket:	a5102-14
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2017-10-13
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	30423

44 ALLSTATE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING -- rank: 569

... against defendants for PIP reimbursement and demanded arbitration pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. After discovery, Allstate filed a motion to compel arbitration, and ...

docket:	a5900-11
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2013-12-02
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	29339

45 NATIONAL CONSUMER INSURANCE COMPANY v. U-HAUL OF CENTRAL PA, INC., A Corporation, et al. -- rank: 566

... the court rejected the arbitration demand.     The governing statute is N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. The essential provisions read as follows:             An insurer, . . . paying [PIP ... do so.     The parties agree on that general exegesis of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. That is, since N.J.S.A. 45:21-2 ... coverage, such insurance would fall within that first description in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 of a case where reimbursement for PIP payments is available ... PIP coverage. According to National, the facts fall squarely within N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 and N.J.S.A. 45:21-1 through - 15 ... that Parodi qualifies as a "tortfeasor" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. The repayment provisions of that statute, as they apply to ...

docket:	a4908-99
court:	njappellate
decided:	2001-05-11
status:	published
citation:	340 N.J. Super. 358
Document Size:	13796