 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Caviglia v. Royal Tours of America2/19/2004
ndars. Rybeck, supra, 141 N.J. Super. at 492.
In the decades that followed the birth of No Fault, the Legislature grappled with the intractable problem of the spiraling cost of automobile insurance. See Oswin, supra, 129 N.J. at 296 (describing Legislature's attempts to solve problem of rising insurance rates). In 1984, the Legislature comprehensively amended the No Fault Act by passage of the New Jersey Automobile Insurance Freedom of Choice and Cost Containment Act (the Cost Containment Act) for the purpose of making automobile insurance more affordable and available to more members of the public. L. 1983, c. 362; Oswin, supra, 129 N.J. at 295-96. The Cost Containment Act gave motorists the option of reducing insurance premiums by increasing deductibles and reducing benefits. Oswin, supra, 129 N.J. at 296. The new
legislation also enlarged the class of people to be excluded from PIP coverage entirely. Parkway Ins. Co. v. New Jersey Neck & Back, 330 N.J. Super. 172, 180 (Law Div. 1998). N.J.S.A. 39:6A-7 denied PIP benefits to those persons whose intentional or criminal conduct contributed to their own personal injuries and to those owners and registrants of New Jersey vehicles who failed to maintain PIP coverage. L. 1983, c. 362, § 10.
Denying an uninsured driver the right to recover medical costs and lost wages that would have been reimbursable if the driver had PIP coverage was a part of the larger goal of controlling the cost of insurance to the public. Parkway Ins. Co., supra, 330 N.J. Super. at 180 (noting Senate statement that restrictions were "designed to tighten statutory eligibility requirements for personal injury protection coverage so as to comport with the original intent of the no fault law").
In 1985, the Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5, which imposes restrictions on the right of an uninsured driver to sue for non-economic damages. That statute originally provided:
Any person who, at the time of an automobile accident resulting in injuries to that person, is required but fails to maintain medical expense benefits coverage mandated by [N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4 ]... shall:
a. For the purpose of filing an action for recovery of non-economic loss, as defined in [N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2], be subject to the tort option specified in [N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8b];
b. In the event of a recovery for non-economic loss pursuant to an arbitration award, judicial judgment or voluntary settlement, be subject to the setoff option as set forth in [N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.3c], except that the amount of the setoff shall be payable to the New Jersey Automobile Insurance Risk Exchange established pursuant to [N.J.S.A. 39:6A-21].
[L. 1985, c. 520, § 14 (current version at N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5) (emphasis added).]
The statute did not restrict entirely an injured, uninsured motorist from suing for non-economic damages, but conditioned that right on his meeting the $1,500 medical-expense threshold. L. 1985, c. 520, § 14. At that time, the $1,500 medical-expense threshold was the highest monetary threshold option available to insureds in exchange for lower premiums. L. 1985, c. 520, § 15.
The uninsured driver, thus, had to satisfy the most onerous monetary threshold before he was entitled to pursue a suit for non-economic injuries.
In 1988, the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5 by deleting subsection b and by subjecting uninsured motorists seeking non-economic damages to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a's new verbal threshold as a condition to filing suit. L. 1988, c. 119, §§ 4, 6. The verbal threshold required a more exacting standard of proving death or a severe bodily injury and applied to all insured motori
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 New Jersey Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|