Aponte-Correa v. Allstate Insurance
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1DissentVerniero, J.
The Court concludes that plaintiffs claim for PIP benefits is timely, notwithstanding the fact that it was filed more than two years after the carrier’s last payment of benefits. I believe that conclusion is at odds with the plain language of the PIP statute. Even if we assume that the statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation, the construction advanced by the majority runs counter to the rationale expressed in our unanimous opinion in Ochs v. Federal Ins. Co., 90 N.J. 108, 447 A.2d 163 (1982). Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
I
I begin my analysis with the familiar axiom, “[i]f…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Deal v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- State v. ButlerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
- State v. FearickSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1976
- Ochs v. Federal InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
- New Jersey Carpenters Apprentice Training & Education Fund v. Borough of KenilworthSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1996
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.