Hammond v. Doan

Decision Date11 February 1974
Citation316 A.2d 68,127 N.J.Super. 67
PartiesTheodore HAMMOND, Plaintiff, v. Bruce C. DOAN, Defendant.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court

Charles I. Tighe, III, Cherry Hill, for plaintiff (Toll, Friedman, Pinsky & Jones, Cherry Hill, attorneys).

Charles A. Winkelried, Cherry Hill, for defendant.

RIZZI, A.J.S.C.

This is an auto negligence case in which defendant moves for an order requiring a pretrial hearing and disposition of his second separate defense which alleges that the statutory threshold requirements of the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act, N.J.S.A. 39:6A--1 et seq., (otherwise, No-Fault Law) have not been met by plaintiff and therefore defendant is immune from suit under the statute. Plaintiff urges that the defense is one that can be decided at pretrial only if the facts are undisputed and the issue is one of law such as to authorize summary judgment to be entered.

The primary issue is a procedural one: What procedure should be followed by the court in fixing liability and coverage within the meaning of the statute, when these factors are placed in issue prior to time of trial on the merits of the suit themselves? There are competing considerations which must be dealt with in determining a course of action, and the importance of these considerations must be examined in light of the legislative intent and spirit of the statute in order to determine a proper procedure for disposal of the issues at hand. Defendant wishes to expedite the trial of the issue of his statutory obligation or exemption, and requests a preliminary adjudication thereon. Plaintiff, however, would want any trial of the issues to be full and complete rather than splintered and bifurcated or trifurcated to a piecemeal conclusion. While defendant cites the elimination of congestion of civil calendars as a key element in his motion, his suggested alternative is to divide the issues to be tried by multiplying the trials--an approach which does not appear to result in any substantial decongestion of litigation snarls.

The problem is one which has not been specifically dealt with either by statute or case law. In New Jersey the question as to the timeliness of entertaining and deciding a preliminary dispute based on coverage has not been dealt with within the context of the new No-Fault Law. An examination of the no-fault laws drafted in 11 states shows that none of them has addressed itself to this specific problem. However, an analysis of certain elements of these legislative schemes provides some parallel glimpses of statutory techniques adopted in practical litigation of claims.

The Massachusetts plan, earliest of the no-fault legislative schemes was adopted and went into effect in January 1971. The only definitive decision on its validity was Pinnick v. Cleary, Mass., 271 N.E.2d 592, 42 A.L.R.3d 194, in which the constitutionality of the no-fault scheme was upheld on several fronts. However, Massachusetts has provided for recovery for pain and suffering only if certain circumstances are present. There is no specific test of the sufficiency of the complaint as to pain and suffering; it appears that it is sufficient if plaintiff merely alleges in his declaration the existence of one or more grounds for pain and suffering recovery. If, after a trial of the issue, he has failed to prove existence of the alleged ground, presumably the court would instruct the jury to return no verdict for pain and suffering. Acts of 1970, chapter 670, section 34M, Laws of Massachusetts. Thus, the Massachusetts legislature did not provide for a preliminary hearing of some kind in order to test the sufficiency of a plaintiff's allegations of pain and suffering, but rather relegates the issue to the trial itself and appropriately deals with it at that stage.

In Connecticut the remedy of declaratory judgment is specifically provided for in order to determine the amount of basic reparations benefits as due and owing between the insurer and the insured. Where the insured notifies his own insurance company of a course of rehabilitative treatment which he is taking due to his accident, and the insurer does not accept responsibility promptly for its cost, plaintiff can move in court in an action to adjudicate his claim, which action shall be privileged, for a determination that the insurer is responsible for the cost of the rehabilitation program. A privileged action can also be brought by the insurer in response to such a claim by the insured. Public Act 273, section 19, Laws of Connecticut. In addition, section 19 provides for the availability of a declaratory judgment action by either party for relief under other provisions of the law; for example, to test the constitutionality of the no-fault statute, as was done in Pinnick v. Cleary, Supra, and Grace v. Howlett, 51 Ill.2d 478, 283 N.E.2d 474 (Sup.Ct.1972), wherein the plan of Illinois was declared unconstitutional.

These two instances were the only specific statutory authority dealing with the problem of how the court should proceed when presented with a preliminary attack upon the very pleadings and their sufficiency. Massachusetts deals with an attack upon the alleged pain and suffering only at actual trial, and permits the issue to be aired fully only when the parties' day in court has arrived. In Connecticut the device of declaratory judgment can be employed by parties to define their rights and liabilities where...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Matter of
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • October 13, 1988
    ...Burlington Tp. v. Middle Dep't. Inspection Agency, 175 N.J.Super. 624, 628, 421 A.2d 616 (Law Div.1980); Hammond v. Doan, 127 N.J.Super. 67, 72, 316 A.2d 68 (Law Div.1974); N.J.S.A. The remedy thus provided, however, is circumscribed by the salutary qualification that the jurisdiction of th......
  • Registrar & Transfer Co. v. Director of Division of Taxation, Dept. of Treasury
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • February 28, 1978
    ...A.2d 318 (Ch.Div.1963), aff'd on other grounds sub nom. David v. Vesta Co., 45 N.J. 301, 312 A.2d 345 (1965); Hammond v. Doan, 127 N.J.Super. 67, 71, 316 A.2d 68 (Law Div.1974); Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Bd. v. Concord Ins. Co., 110 N.J.Super. 191, 196, 264 A.2d 757 (Law Div.1970). ......
  • Rybeck v. Rybeck
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • April 30, 1976
    ...137, 342 A.2d 875 (Law Div.1975); Rugamer v. Thompson, 130 N.J.Super. 181, 325 A.2d 860 (Law Div.1974); Hammond v. Doan, 127 N.J.Super. 67, 316 A.2d 68 (Law Div.1974). If the determination involves a pretrial medical hearing, or requires additional medical testimony at trial, the cost is in......
  • Falcone v. Branker
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • June 19, 1975
    ...judgment. While defendants brought this motion initially as one for summary judgment, the procedure suggested in Hammond v. Doan, 127 N.J.Super. 67, 316 A.2d 68 (Law Div.1974) (see, too, the approval of this method in Smith v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 305 So.2d 216 (Fla.D.Ct.App.1974), fo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT