Citation Numbers: 325 N.J. Super. 163, 737 A.2d 1186
Judges: Reisner
Filed Date: 5/5/1998
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/25/2022
This is an automobile accident case in which plaintiff Lucio Rodriguez filed a complaint against General Accident Insurance company to recover personal injury protection (PIP) benefits pursuant to the No Fault Act, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4. On April 30, 1998, after the case had been pending in the Superior Court for two years, plaintiffs counsel filed a request for binding arbitration
The policy of both the courts and the No Fault statute favors “prompt and efficient resolution of PIP disputes without resort to the judicial process.” State Farm Mut. Auto. v. Molino, 289 N.J.Super. 406, 410, 674 A.2d 189 (App.Div.1996); see also Roig v. Kelsey, 135 N.J. 500, 516, 641 A.2d 248 (1994), concerning the goal of the No Fault Act to reduce court congestion. Moreover, the liberal construction of the arbitration provision of the PIP statute “comports with New Jersey’s longstanding and strong public policy favoring arbitration in general.” State Farm Mut. Auto. v. Molino, supra, 289 N.J.Super. at 410, 674 A.2d 189.
Nothing in the PIP arbitration provision, N.J.S.A 39:6A~5(h), suggests that a plaintiff cannot withdraw a PIP action initially filed in Superior Court, in favor of binding arbitration of the PIP claim. Some claimants may not be aware of their statutory right to arbitration at the time their court complaints are filed, and given the statutory goal of reducing court congestion referral to arbitration is to be encouraged.
General Accident has made allegations concerning possible fraud in this case. There is, however, no separate counterclaim for fraud. Any evidence which the insurance company has concerning fraud as it relates to the PIP claim can be presented to the arbitrator.
Upon plaintiffs attorney’s service on General Accident of a PIP Arbitration Demand (as set forth in Appendix C-18 of Craig & Pomeroy, New Jersey Auto Insurance Law, 1998 Edition) with a