New Jersey Work Injury Lawyer

Burlington County Location:
525 Route 73 North
Suite 104
Marlton, NJ 08053

Camden County Location:
111 White Horse Pike
Haddon Hts., NJ 08035

View Larger Map

New Jersey Work Injury Law Blog

New Jersey Accident Lawyers Seek answer to whether drivers can sue for medical expenses beyond PIP limits

A New Jersey Superior Court judge decided that drivers who opt for lower personal injury protection amounts can sue for medical expenses that exceed their Personal Injury Protection coverage. Two women injured in a car crash can pursue claims for nearly $50,000 in uncompensated medical costs after the available $15,000 in PIP coverage was exhausted. However, the only other case to address the question Kim v. Kim came to an opposite result in 2010. The judge here held that Kim was not consistent with the language of the no-fault insurance law and the purpose behind the statutory scheme. The insurance company argued that  the standard policy contains $250,000 in protection and any medical costs below that amount cannot be recovered. Thus, an insured who chooses lower PIP coverage for a lower premium gives up the right to sue for medical expenses above that level.

The judge disagreed holding that the ““amount collectible” depends on the limit of the insured’s PIP policy, which in this case was $15,000. Plaintiffs are only barred from admitting evidence of medical expenses under that amount.” Additionally, he stated that the no fault law says that it should not be interpreted to preclude a car accident victim from recovering uncompensated economic losses from a tortfeasor and defines economic loss to specifically include medical expenses. Moreover, insurance law “is devoid of any legislative intent to have insured’s bargain for potentially bankrupting bills, in exchange for lower premiums”

For more information regarding Injury Law in the State of NJ, please visit NJ Personal Injury Lawyer John F. Renner.

Wise v. Marienski

Legal Quote of the Week:

“Litigation is the pursuit of practical ends, not a game of chess”

Felix Frankfurter, Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, Trustee, 314 U.S. 63 (1941)

N.J. Personal Injury attorneys examine who is required to provide PIP benefits to the driver of a rented car

Plaintiff was involved in an accident in New Jersey while driving a car rented from defendant Avis and is a Florida resident insured by defendant State Farm. State farm filed a motion for summary judgment. Avis filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff ‘s New Jersey personal injury attorney contends that if the rental car plaintiff was operating is covered under the policy then State Farm would be liable under the Deemer Statute for $250,000.00 in personal injury protection benefits (PIP).  If the rental car is not covered, plaintiff asserts that Avis is required to provide these benefits. The court finds the car plaintiff was driving at the time of the accident qualifies as a non-owned car that is covered by State Farm’s policy. Therefore, State Farm is responsible for the medical expense benefits stemming from the accident because the Deemer Statute and the language of the policy apply. Moreover, plaintiff cannot pursue a claim for benefits against Avis due to the anti-stacking provisions. Avis’s cross-motion for summary judgment is granted. Because State Farm is responsible for the PIP benefits, the court must determine the appropriate limit. The court denies State Farm’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice, finding no evidence that plaintiff elected a $15,000.00 limit under the policy, or any limit under $250,000.00.    For more information on New Jersey injury law, please visit the website of New Jersey personal injury lawyer John F. Renner.

Legal Quote of the Week:

The rule of my life is to make business a pleasure, and pleasure my business.

Aaron Burr, 1756-1836, Letter to Pichon, secretary to the French Legation at Washington, D.C.


Personal Injury Attorney seeks reimbursement of PIP benefits through New Jersey Workers’ Compensation

Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion to confirm the award of benefits from an arbitrator and its claim petition as a subrogee under New Jersey Workers’ Compensation. The plaintiff paid personal injury protection benefits to Manuel Rivera injured while driving a car owned by its insured. Plaintiff, believing that Manuel was driving in the course of his employment, attempted to collect reimbursement from defendant, Manuel’s employer’s workers’ compensation carrier. It obtained an award from Arbitration Forums, Inc. and also filed a claim petition, as a subrogee, with the Division of Workers’ Compensation.

The panel affirmed because the AFI arbitrator exceeded his authority because the Division has exclusive jurisdiction, the defendant was not served with the demand for arbitration since plaintiff supplied an incorrect address, despite knowledge of the correction address.   For additional information on NJ Personal Injury or NJ Work Injury law, please visit the website of New Jersey Lawyer John F. Renner.

Legal Quote of the Week:

One must be chary of words because they turn into cages.

Viola Spolin, In article of Barry Hyams, Los Angles Times, May 26, 1974


New Jersey Court finds that the statute of limitations in New Jersey Workers’ Compensation does not provide a safe harbor in its tolling provision for petitioner with Dislexia

The petitioners New Jersey Workers’ Compensation claim was dismissed because the respondent failed to file the petition within two years from the last date of benefits under N.J.S.A. 34:15-27. The injuries did arise out of the course of his employment, but the petition was filed more than two years after the last receipt of benefits as required in New Jersey Workers’ Compensation. The petitioner claims that the tolling provision for insane persons should have been applied to determine the timeliness of his petition, in light of the remedial purposes of the NJ Workers’ Compensation Act. Additionally,  he argues that a letter from the third party administrator of AIC’s workers’ compensation carrier contributed to his failure to timely file his petition, thus AIC should be estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense under NJ Workers’ Compensation law.

The appellate panel affirmed the NJ Comp courts’ dismissal, finding no exceptions for tolling the statute of limitations. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner’s dyslexia has no bearing on his intelligence or his ability to understand his legal rights under NJ Workers’ Compensation. The plain language of the New Jersey Statute provides no safe harbor from the consequences of his failure to file a timely motion for compensation of his work injury. Lastly, the panel found no merit in the petitioner’s estoppel argument.   For more information on the New Jersey laws of Workers Compensation, please visit the website of John F. Renner, Esquire, NJ Work Injury Lawyer.

Legal Quote of the Week:

Reason dissipates the illusions of life, but does not console us for their departure.

Countess of Blessington, Desultory Thoughts and Reflections, 1839