Lakita D. Murray v. Christopher B. Punina

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that future medical expenses falling within a claimant’s personal injury protection coverage limits are “collectible” under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 and therefore inadmissible in a personal injury action against a tortfeasor. The Court concluded that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 applies to PIP benefits available through the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund. Because the future expenses should have been excluded, the related damages and offer-of-judgment award were also properly removed.

Holdings

1. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 applies to PIP benefits available through the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund because the UCJF statute uses 'personal injury protection' as a general term encompassing PIP benefits under the No-Fault Act.
2. Future medical expense benefits that do not exceed a claimant's applicable PIP coverage limits are 'collectible' under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 and are inadmissible as damages in a personal-injury action against a tortfeasor.
3. Because the projected future medical expenses were inadmissible, they had to be excluded from the damages award, and the additional costs and fees awarded under the offer-of-judgment rule also had to be excluded.
4. The PIP statute of limitations does not strictly bar claims for reasonably expected future medical treatment when the insurer knew the injury would probably require that treatment; such claims must be brought within a reasonable time after rejection of a prompt claim for payment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 applies to PIP benefits available through the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund.
2. Whether projected future medical expenses that do not exceed the claimant's remaining PIP coverage limits are 'collectible' and therefore inadmissible in a personal-injury action against a tortfeasor.
3. Whether the judgment and the additional costs and fees awarded under the offer-of-judgment rule had to be reduced or eliminated because the future-medical-expense award was based on inadmissible evidence.
4. Whether the statute of limitations for PIP claims prevents a claimant from pursuing PIP benefits for reasonably expected future medical treatment.

Disposition

affirmed