I am putting by Bodily Injury hat on this one. There are few issues in 5102(d) land that intrigue me as much as the newest prima facie jurisprudence.
For instance, is it logical for an appellate court to knock out the permanent consequential and significant limitation categories, find a triable issue of fact on 90/180 and then state the following: “We note that if plaintiff ultimately prevails on her 90/180-day claim, she will be ‘entitled to recover damages that justly and fairly [*2]compensate . . . her for all injuries proximately caused by the accident” (Rubin v SMS Taxi Corp., 71 AD3d 548, 549-550 [2010]; see Delgado v Papert Tr., Inc., 93 AD3d 457 [2012]).'”
Think about how ridiculous this sounds. A court says you have no permanent or significant injuries, yet allows a jury to award damages on all injuries under the non-permanent 90/180 threshold category? I know I am a defense attorney and I try these cases so perhaps I am biased. Still, does this make sense?
I think Article 51 of the Insurance Law has spawned a level and degree of insanity that can hardly be explained.
