Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

1 Joshua Haines v. Jacob W. Taft -- rank: 1000

... that exceeded their $15,000 PIP limits. Defendants relied on N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 (Section 12), which addresses the inadmissibility of evidence of losses ... judgments of dismissal. JUSTICE ALBIN, dissenting, expresses the view that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 is intended to prevent a double recovery of damages, not ... s interpretation is at odds with the plain wording of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, the legislative history of the No Fault Act, and public ... that exceeded the $15,000 PIP limits. Defendants relied on N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 (Section 12), which addresses the inadmissibility of evidence of losses ... plaintiffs’ argument in favor of a plain- language approach to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 and also agreed that allowing recovery of uncompensated medical expenses ... of medical expenses by plaintiffs. Id. at 302, 307. Examining N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 and the statutory provisions referred to therein, the Appellate ...

docket:	a-13-14-17
court:	NJ Supreme Court
decided:	2019-03-26
status:
citation:
Document Size:	102160

2 New Jersey Transit Corporation v. Sandra Sanchez -- rank: 946

... recovery of damages for bodily injury by such injured person. [N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12.] That section was intended to ensure that an “injured ... payment for the medical expenses covered by workers’ compensation, because N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 would bar evidence of “amounts collectible or paid” under ... as a matter of policy on the PIP carrier by N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12. [Id. at 8-9 (citations omitted).] The Appellate Division thus ... by the injured party.’” Id. at 190 (quoting N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12). It noted, however, that had the employee been injured in ... We disagree. The Appellate Division’s decision does not contravene N.J.S.A. 39:6A- 12. In most settings, that statute bars the admission in a ... 6A-3.1, -3.3, -4, -4.3, or -10. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12. Reimbursed for his medical expenses and lost wages by ...

docket:	a-68-18
court:	NJ Supreme Court
decided:	2020-05-12
status:
citation:
Document Size:	108237

3 JOSHUA HAINES v. JACOB W TAFT -- rank: 831

... expenses from a tortfeasor. Therefore, the question presented is whether N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 precludes the recovery of medical expenses above those collectible or ... ex rel. K.O. , 217 N.J. 83 , 91 (2014). N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 and N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(k) principally control the resolution of the issue presented on appeal. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 (Section 12) provides in pertinent part: Except as may be ... expenses. The Court defined the issue before it as "whether N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 . . . prohibits an injured party from recovering from a tortfeasor the ... injured party may seek to recover against a tortfeasor. See N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 and N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(k). Because ...

docket:	a5503-14
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2017-04-27
status:	published
citation:
Document Size:	52745

4 NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORPORATION v. SANDRA SANCHEZ -- rank: 728

... J.S.A. 39:6A-6, the evidence bar of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, or the verbal threshold statute, N.J.S.A. 39 ... are met. There is merit to plaintiff's claim because N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 specifically states that the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act ... changed the statutory provisions on which Lefkin relied. Importantly, both N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 and N.J.S.A. 39:6A-6 predated AICRA ... the primary burden is placed . . . on the PIP carrier by N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12.' Ibid. However, 'where both workers' compensation benefits and the proceeds ... not entitled to recover such expenses from the tortfeasors under N.J.S.A. 39:6A- - 12. Id. at 67. The judge reasoned that the injured workers ... may recover medical expenses from the third-party tortfeasor and N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 does not apply. The workers' compensation insurer, in turn, ...

docket:	a0761-17
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2018-12-04
status:	Published
citation:	457 N.J.Super. 98 197 A.3d 1158
Document Size:	36055

5 ROIG V. KELSEY -- rank: 726

... for a unanimous Court. ����The issue on appeal is whether N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 (section 12) of the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act ...

docket:	a-43-93
court:	njsupreme
decided:	1994-05-19
status:
citation:	135 N.J. 500
Document Size:	52493

6 PEGGY BIRMINGHAM v. TRAVELERS NEW JERSEY INS. CO -- rank: 714

... 362, § 13.] The Legislature made a similar amendment to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, which prohibits either side in a civil damages action against ... N.J. at 505. It further noted the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 at the same time to render deductibles 'specifically excluded from ... Super. 246, 250-51 (App. Div. 2004). Instead, AICRA left N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 unchanged, and it modified the definition of 'economic loss' in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(k), which N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 incorporates, to include uncompensated 'medical expenses' but without naming deductibles ...

docket:	a0429-21
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2023-03-31
status:	Published
citation:
Document Size:	48813

7 CATHRYNE M. LOFTUS-SMITH V. GREGORY A. SMITH, ET AL -- rank: 682

... had been decided. In Roig , the Supreme Court held that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 of the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act, N.J ... J. Super. 43 , 45 (App. Div. 1995). We relied upon N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 which states: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to ... Legislature clearly provided for recovery of such "uncompensated economic loss." N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12. ����Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to a trial on her claimed ...

docket:	a1720-94
court:	njappellate
decided:	1996-01-23
status:	published published
citation:	<a href=
Document Size:	39433

8 JENNIFER LAMBERT v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA -- rank: 675

... not entitled to recover such expenses from the tortfeasors under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, which bars evidence in an action against the tortfeasor of ... may recover medical expenses from the third-party tortfeasor and N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 does not apply. The workers' compensation insurer, in turn, has ... is treated as a no-fault insured and, therefore, under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, any recovery from the tortfeasor cannot include medical expenses that ... such employees against third-party tortfeasors, the evidential bar of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 does not apply. The statutes and case law support this ... PIP coverage from the injured person's own automobile insurer. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12; see Bardis v. First Trenton Ins. Co. , 199 N.J ... Cas. Ins. Co. , 72 N.J. 380 , 387 (1977))). Thus, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, which pre-dated AICRA, continues to preclude the introduction ...

docket:	a1073-14
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2016-08-24
status:	published
citation:	447 N.J.Super. 61 145 A.3d 1095
Document Size:	46388

9 K. Johnson v. Roselle EZ Quick LLC -- rank: 644

... injury by such injured person[,]” id. at 562 (quoting N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12), extinguished an injured person’s right “to maintain an ... 1.1). 4 The Legislature also created an exemption in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 for the admissibility of evidence of the amount of insurance ...

docket:	a-33-14
court:	New Jersey Supreme Court
decided:	2016-01-05
status:
citation:
Document Size:	107061

10 EDWARD & BARBARA ADAMS VS COOPER HOSPITAL, ET AL -- rank: 640

... insurer paid the stipulated $154,380 in medical malpractice expenses, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 barred the admissibility of all medical expenses. Thus, they argue ... J. Super. 367 , 370-73 (App. Div. 1993), defendant claims N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 barred the admissibility of all medical expenses arising out of ... embodied in N.J.S.A. 2A:15-97 because N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 curtails medical expense evidence only when they relate to automobile ... the trial court's application of the collateral source rule. ���� N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 provides in part: [E]vidence of the amounts collectible or ... this act. This statute has goals similar to those of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12. It fosters the state's public policy against double recoveries ... rev'd on other grounds , 138 N.J. 278 (1994). ���� N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 is applicable only to automobile personal injury litigation. It ...

docket:	a170-95
court:	njappellate
decided:	1996-11-13
status:	published
citation:	<a href=
Document Size:	25497

11 GERARD NORTESANO v. DAVID TORRES-ROMERO -- rank: 633

... S.A. 39:6A-6, the collateral source rule, and N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, the evidentiary bar that prevents admission of evidence of PIP ...

docket:	A0521-05
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2006-12-04
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	43924

12 LINDA D'ALOIA v. SANDRA M. GEORGE -- rank: 626

... expenses. Defendant George contends that since AICRA did not repeal N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, which makes PIP deductibles and copayments inadmissible in evidence, the ... in this case, the Court was called upon to construe N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12. The first paragraph of this section specifically provides that in ... covered by the verbal threshold or the "no threshold" option, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 continues to bar lawsuits to recover PIP copayments and deductibles ...

docket:	A1938-03
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2004-10-12
status:	published
citation:	372 N.J. Super. 246 858 A.2d 16
Document Size:	14806

13 VICTOR DZIUBA et al. v. SCOTT J. FLETCHER, KRISTEN L. VANDERHOOK, LOUIS H. VANDERHOOK, et al. -- rank: 600

... from collecting medical expense damages. This issue is more settled. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 provides that "evidence of the amounts collectible or paid [as ... to meet the injury threshold of the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12. Thus, the second judge correctly determined that Victor was barred ... barred from recovery of PIP benefits as a result of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, he is not precluded from recovery of non-economic loss ...

docket:	a7056-03
court:	njappellate
decided:	2005-12-27
status:	published
citation:	382 N.J. Super. 73
Document Size:	47493

14 VIDA DELGIORNO v. EDDIE L. MOSS -- rank: 598

... both N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 and N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12. Vida would still be proceeding under her personal injury case ... carrier, they would be inadmissible in her tort action. See N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 (Except as may be required in an action brought under ... 1995) (explaining the policy behind the evidential exclusion rule of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 is to prevent double recovery of PIP benefits). Moreover, Rutgers ...

docket:	a2883-08
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2009-10-16
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	44336

15 UNSATISFIED CLAIM & JUDGMENT FUND BOARD V. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 593

... to sue for losses satisfied by PIP payments. Ibid. ; see N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12. ����A subrogation right allows the insurer or PIP carrier to ... insured had no rights because the evidentiary-exclusion rule of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 (section 12) bars injured parties from recovering tort damages for ...

docket:	a-34-94
court:	njsupreme
decided:	1994-11-23
status:
citation:	138 N.J. 185
Document Size:	63588