STATE COURT CASES FEDERAL COURT CASES

04-2-5883 McKeen v. State Farm Indemnity Company , App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) On June 15, 2004, plaintiff sustained an injury when her arms were caught in the sliding door of her GMC Safari vehicle. It ultimately became necessary to amputate her left arm due to her injuries. Plaintiff’s vehicle was insured by defendant State Farm Indemnity Company. Plaintiff and her husband did not, however, submit her medical bills to State Farm but to their health insurance carrier. In September 2007, plaintiff filed suit, seeking essential-services PIP benefits under the State Farm policy. Here, plaintiff appeals from a trial court order granting summary judgment to State Farm. Plaintiff argues that her suit should be considered timely because it was filed within two years of plaintiff first submitting her claim to State Farm, in December 2005, and within two years of State Farm’s notification to plaintiff that it was closing its PIP file. The appellate panel rejects that argument where the Legislature has clearly spoken and created a two-year period in which a policyholder may file suit for PIP benefits. Because plaintiff did not act within that two-year window, the panel affirms summary judgment in favor of State Farm. [Decided Nov. 16, 2009.]

CIVIL PROCEDURE — DISCOVERY

07-2-5884 Logan v. Fisher , App. Div. (per curiam) (9 pp.) Central Orthopedic Associates and Dr. Ronald Gerson, defendants’ medical expert, move for leave to appeal a trial court order that denied a motion for a protective order precluding inquiry into financial records. Discovery of the personal financial information of nonparties is not unbridled. Because the judge here did not analyze the parties’ interests in determining to what extent, if any, plaintiff should be entitled to the information in question, the appellate panel vacates the order under review and remands. The judge should be concerned not only with the plaintiff’s right to information from which she may be able to argue positional bias, but also the chilling effect unfettered access could have on the willingness of professionals to provide services in such matters. [Decided Nov. 16, 2009.]

CIVIL RIGHTS — DEFAMATION — FREE SPEECH