Bigstock

I am again dismayed at the lack of respect for the rights of individuals and the inadequate dispensing of justice displayed by our New Jersey Supreme Court in the recent decision by Justice LaVecchia, joined by Chief Justice Rabner and Justice Solomon, in Joshua Haines v. Jacob W. Taft, A 13/14-17, September Term 2017, disregarded the original policy of New Jersey's “no fault” law, which was to make certain that the medical bills of New Jersey citizens injured in car accidents were paid, regardless of fault, through one's own carrier (hence the name “no fault”). The concern was to have medical treatment available to those injured and the bills paid no matter who was at fault. To the extent that bills were in excess of PIP policy limits, the bills would be “boardable” in a claim against an at-fault driver—no longer under Haines.

The “no fault” law has evolved in such a way that to call it “no fault” now makes no sense—deductible and copay are the responsibility of the injured party, regardless of fault, and the options for choosing the amount of coverage for medical payments through PIP often results in exhaustion of benefits, resulting in unpaid medical bills for the injured party. If the injured party is at fault, the remedy is for the injured party to pay the bills. If the injured party is not at fault and the victim of someone else's negligence, the injured party is left in the same position as the injured party who is at fault, as a result of this perversion of the “no fault” law espoused by Justice LaVecchia in Haines.

The victim becomes victimized again by the Haines decision removing the possibility of being made whole. The party is re-victimized by not making the at-fault driver responsible for excess medical bills, i.e., those bills incurred for treatment related to the injuries from the car accident, but which include the deductible amount and co-pay (previously excluded by this Court), and bills after the PIP limits are exhausted (now through the absurd reasoning of this Court are excluded). The victim is again victimized by the Court's argument that Legislature did not intend to deviate from its highly regulated no-fault system of first-party self insurance to cover medical expenses arising from automobile accidents, when it amended the statutory scheme to allow an insured to elect smaller amounts of personal injury protection (PIP) under a standard policy.

The only rationale for this decision is that the auto insurance companies do not want the responsibility of paying the medical bills after exhaustion of benefits; it is not to protect the public from unpaid medical bills. The simple fact of lowering the PIP coverage and maintaining the no-fault concept that medicals should be covered regardless of fault makes this decision faulty and a travesty for New Jersey citizens who cannot afford better PIP coverage but who are seriously injured and require treatment in excess of their limited coverage. Ultimately, we will all pay for these unpaid/uncovered medical bills. The Supreme Court recites policy reasons to disassemble the no-fault law concept and free insurance companies from paying medical bills. It makes no sense and is supremely unjust and unfair.

I started this letter by stating that I am again dismayed at the lack of respect for the rights of individuals and the inadequate dispensing of justice displayed by our Supreme Court in its recent decision. I would add that the New Jersey Supreme Court has consistently violated constitutional protections and individual rights. See State of New Jersey v. Shayna Zalcberg, 232 N.J. 335 (2018), which decision makes New Jersey's search and seizure law more restrictive than federal law—a first in my lifetime, and probably a federal constitutional violation.

The current decision sadly fits in with other recent decisions in which the New Jersey Supreme Court has denigrated the individual, and individual rights and liberties, in favor of business/insurance interests. See Justice LaVecchia's written decision in Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, 203 N.J. 286 (2010), in which she made contracts of adhesion acceptable. Prior to Stelluti, contracts of adhesion had been presumed unfair, and it had been the burden of the adhesion contract maker to show the validity/fairness of a contract of adhesion because “the process of entering into a contract of adhesion “is not one of haggle or cooperative process but rather of a fly and flypaper.” Contracts by Calamari & Perillo, p. 6. A contract of adhesion was considered suspect until Stelluti because of the relative bargaining positions of the parties involved, that is, in a contract of adhesion, there was no bargaining.

Our state's highest court has become unresponsive to the citizens of our great state and now caters to corporate and insurance interests, etc. See Sanders v. Langemeier, 199 N.J. 366 (2009); Fernandez v. Nationwide Mutual & Proformance, 199 N.J. 591 (2009); Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, 203 N.J. 286 (2010).

I am greatly saddened by the direction that our Supreme Court has taken in these difficult times. It has become a political tool, like so many other institutions, which is worked to the advantage of larger corporate/insurance interests, and to the disadvantage and victimization of the individual, especially of those without the means or voice to protect themselves.

Edward S. Kahn is a criminal justice attorney in Lawrenceville.