Case Briefs

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently resolved the longstanding controversy over the proper interpretation of the 1998 Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act (“AICRA” or “Act”), N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1.1 to 35. See DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 874 A.2d 1039 (2005), and Serrano v. Serrano, 183 N.J. 508, 874 A.2d 1058 (2005). AICRA basically provides policyholders with the choice of lower insurance premium payments in exchange for limiting their right to sue for non-economic damages. The Act's relevant “limitation on lawsuit” threshold prevents recovery unless the injured claimant sustains a bodily injury that results in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement or significant scarring; displaced fractures; loss of a fetus; or a permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability, other than scarring or disfigurement. See N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a. It further provides that such injury will be regarded as permanent only when the involved body part has not healed, and will not heal, to function normally with further medical treatment. Id. To satisfy the Act's requirements, a claimant who has filed a bodily injury suit must, within a specified time frame, provide a physician's sworn certification that objective clinical evidence demonstrates that the claimant has sustained a permanent injury of the type specified in the Act. Id.