Legal Opinion

Rahnefeld v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided July 18, 1989PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

In Zupo v. CNA Insurance Co., 98 N.J. 30 (1984), we adopted the principle that when an automobile liability-insurance carrier has made payments of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits in connection with a compensable injury and is chargeable with knowledge at the time of its last payment that the injury will probably require additional treatment in the future, then the “two years after payment” provision of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-13.1 will not bar an action brought within a reasonable time after rejection of a prompt claim for payment of additional medical expenses for such treatment. Id. at…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Darel v. Pennsylvania Mfrs. Ass'n Ins. Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1989
  2. Zupo v. CNA InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
  3. Zupo v. CNA Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1984
  4. Lind v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1980
  5. Lind v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1983

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Aponte-Correa v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2000
  2. Sotomayor v. Allstate Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1994
  3. Aponte-Correa v. Allstate InsuranceNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1999
  4. Aponte-Correa v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2000
  5. Aponte-Correa v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2000

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API