New Jersey Law – but see where it all went wrong

Advanced Med. Diagnostics of Queens, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50219(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)

“In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant argued that New Jersey law controlled and, under New Jersey law, plaintiff had failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Defendant also cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In its cross motion, defendant argued that, pursuant to New Jersey law and the New Jersey policy of insurance, the matter was required to be submitted to dispute resolution and, thus, that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendant’s cross motion.”

…

“Under New Jersey law, a provider has the burden, in the first instance, to establish that the provided services were medically reasonable and necessary (see Elkins v New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 244 NJ Super 695, 583 A2d 409 ), and an insurer can raise a lack of medical necessity defense at any time (see NJSA 39:6A-5; Kowaleski v Allstate Ins. Co., 238 NJ Super 210 ). In view of the foregoing, a conflict clearly exists between the law of New York and the law of New Jersey”

…

With respect to defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant argues that, since dispute resolution is mandatory under New Jersey law, the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction and, thus, the action should be dismissed. Contrary to defendant’s contention, dispute resolution is not mandatory in the case at bar pursuant to NJSA 39:6A-5.1 (a), as implemented by NJAC 11:3-5.1 (a) (see also New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. v Bergen Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., 410 NJ Super 270, 272-273 ) since the insurance policy in question does not provide for mandatory dispute resolution; rather, it states that dispute resolution may be taken “on the initiative of any party to the dispute.” Consequently, the Civil Court does not lack jurisdiction and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was properly denied. Inasmuch as, on the record before us, neither party has sought to compel dispute resolution, we do not reach any other issue regarding the dispute resolution provision and its effects.

Geico should have moved pursuant to CPLR Article 75 to compel arbitration.  That would have been the proper relief, and would have gotten the result that Geico wanted.

Related Articles

• When NY and NJ Insurance Laws Collide: Understanding Cross-State Claims
• New Jersey law bars most of Plaintiff’s recovery in this PIP subrogation action
• Understanding Choice of Law in Multi-State Personal Injury Cases
• Pennsylvania Insurance Law in New York Courts: Navigating Choice of Law and the Innocent Third Party Doctrine