 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cooper Hospital University Medical Center v. Prudential Insurance Co.6/27/2005
did not qualify for PIP benefits under the amended deemer statute. 338 N.J. Super. at 174-75.
Nor does anything in the legislative history detract from the plain meaning of the statute as discerned from its language and structure. The deemer statute, as originally designed, was to "lower premiums, reduce litigation and make PIP benefits available to all." GEICO, supra, 358 N.J. Super. at 561 (emphasis added). Specifically, the Legislature wanted "New Jersey-authorized insurance companies provide to their outof-state insured traveling in New Jersey the same protections required of in-state insured vehicles." Id. at 561, 566; see Martin v. Home Ins. Co., 141 N.J. 279, 282 (1995). This objective was carried forward in the 1998 amendment which retained almost entirely intact the original version. Certainly, if, as Prudential suggests, the Legislature had intended such a significant limitation on the coverage afforded in the original text, it would have expressly so stated, rather than continuing its language practically in toto. As we noted in GEICO, supra:
We can discern no Legislative intent to modify the deemer statute in any way other than by establishing the two classifications of insurance companies and requiring each classification to offer different coverages. [358 N.J. Super. at 568.]
Rather than the across-the-board limitation suggested by Prudential, the 1998 amendment sought to continue to "hang the net" for those eligible for PIP benefits "as widely as possible." Id. at 571.
On this score, the legislative statement explaining the 1998 amendment refers explicitly to the addition of a separate classification to include controlling or affiliated insurers that do not conduct auto insurance business in New Jersey, but implicitly are authorized to transact some other type of insurance business in the State. L. 1997, c. 436, ยง 1. As to them, the statement further explains that the bill requires they include PIP coverage in their out-of-state policies to those otherwise uninsured New Jersey residents who are not required themselves to maintain PIP coverage. Ibid. Thus, the amendment addresses "only the controlling or affiliated insurer which now is subject to different requirements depending on its New Jersey authorization." GEICO, supra, 358 N.J. Super. at 568. And the only coverage limitation applies to out-of-state insurance companies that do not conduct auto business in New Jersey and whose New Jersey affiliates also do not conduct auto insurance business. The legislative statement refers to no other limitation and we discern none from the legislative record. Nothing in the explanatory statement suggests that the original pre-amendment version of the legislation should be read in any different light to reduce the coverage clearly provided therein.
Prudential's contrary construction finds no support in either case law or the legislative history. Quite the opposite, we conclude from the plain language, structure, history, and purpose of the legislation that the amendatory text did not effect a change in the coverage of companies that are either, like Prudential, authorized to transact auto insurance business in New Jersey or affiliated with companies writing auto insurance in New Jersey. They continue, as before, to be required to provide PIP, liability, and UM coverage to non-New Jersey residents covered by the policy as well as to New Jersey residents.
Reversed and remanded.
|