Background
In August 2016, Lakita Murray was injured as a passenger in a car accident when the vehicle she occupied, driven by Christopher Punina, collided with a car driven by Anthony Marrone. Because Punina’s vehicle was uninsured and Murray had no household coverage, she obtained PIP benefits through the New Jersey Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Association (NJPLIGA) under the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund (UCJF), which entitled her to up to $250,000 in medical expense benefits. The cost of her pre-trial medical treatment did not exhaust those limits.
Murray filed a personal injury suit against both drivers and made a $50,000 offer of judgment that Marrone rejected. At trial, her medical expert testified that her future medical expenses — for surgeries she had not yet undergone — would range from $42,000 to $160,000. Marrone moved to exclude that testimony under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, the No-Fault Act’s provision barring evidence of losses “collectible” under PIP coverage, but the trial court denied the motion. The jury awarded $250,000 in non-economic damages and $100,000 for future medical expenses; because the total judgment exceeded 120% of Murray’s offer of judgment, the trial court also awarded an additional $44,107.58 under the offer-of-judgment rule.
The Appellate Division reversed in part, holding that the future medical expenses were “collectible” under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 because they fell within Murray’s remaining PIP limits, and accordingly stripped both the future-expense portion of the damages award and the offer-of-judgment fee award. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification.
The Court’s Holding
A unanimous Court, in an opinion by Justice Fasciale, affirmed the Appellate Division. The Court held that future medical expense benefits are “collectible” under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 whenever they do not exceed the claimant’s available PIP coverage limits, and are therefore inadmissible in a personal injury trial against a tortfeasor. The fact that the expenses have not yet been incurred — because the plaintiff deferred surgery until after trial — does not render them “unpaid” in the statutory sense; they remain eligible for payment as PIP benefits once the treatment is received.
The Court also resolved a threshold question: N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 applies to PIP benefits received through the UCJF, not only to benefits from standard, basic, or special automobile insurance policies. Because the UCJF statute expressly incorporates No-Fault Act PIP provisions and the Legislature consistently amended both statutes in tandem, applying a different evidentiary standard to UCJF claimants would improperly grant them a double recovery unavailable to comparably situated insureds.
Applying the statute to Murray’s case, the Court found it undisputed that her projected future expenses fell within her remaining $250,000 PIP limit. Those expenses were therefore collectible, must be excluded from the damages award, and could not serve as the basis for the offer-of-judgment fee award. The Court also rejected the amicus argument that barring future-expense evidence would prejudice plaintiffs under the PIP statute of limitations, noting that the PIP SOL is tolled when future treatment is reasonably anticipated.
Key Takeaways
- Under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, projected future medical expenses are “collectible” — and thus inadmissible against a tortfeasor — whenever they fall within a plaintiff’s remaining PIP coverage limits, even if the treatment has not yet occurred.
- The No-Fault Act’s inadmissibility rule applies equally to PIP benefits provided through the UCJF; UCJF claimants are entitled to equivalent protection, not greater recovery, compared to those with standard automobile insurance.
- Plaintiffs cannot render future expenses admissible by strategically deferring treatment until after trial; doing so would enable the double recovery the No-Fault Act is designed to prevent.
- Because the inadmissible future-expense evidence inflated the damages award past the 120% threshold, the offer-of-judgment fee award also fell and had to be vacated.
Why It Matters
This unanimous decision closes a potential loophole under New Jersey’s No-Fault Act: plaintiffs who defer recommended medical treatment until after trial cannot convert PIP-covered future expenses into tort damages. Defense counsel now have clear authority to exclude such evidence through a pre-trial motion whenever the plaintiff’s remaining PIP limits exceed the projected costs, and the ruling reinforces that the UCJF is a parity mechanism rather than a vehicle for enhanced recovery.
For plaintiffs’ attorneys, the decision underscores the importance of accounting for available PIP limits when evaluating case value and structuring offers of judgment. It also confirms that future medical expenses remain available through the PIP arbitration process — including Forthright’s specialized procedures for future-treatment claims — and that the PIP statute of limitations will not bar those claims when future care is reasonably anticipated.