Olivero by Olivero v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division |
| Citation | 488 A.2d 1071,199 N.J.Super. 191 |
| Parties | Tina OLIVERO, by her Parent and Guardian Ad Litem, Margaret OLIVERO, and Margaret Olivero, individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 05 March 1985 |
Page 191
OLIVERO, and Margaret Olivero, individually,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY and Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants-Respondents.
Appellate Division.
Decided March 5, 1985.
[488 A.2d 1072]
Page 193
Darrell Fineman, Vineland, for plaintiff-appellant (Capizola & Fineman, Vineland, attorneys, Darrell Fineman, Vineland, on brief).J. Robert McGroarty, Deptford, for defendant-respondent New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.
Michael Huber, Haddonfield, for defendant respondent Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (Freeman & Barton, Haddonfield, attorneys Michael Huber, Haddonfield, on brief).
Before Judges KING, DEIGHAN and BILDER.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
DEIGHAN, J.A.D.
This matter is a classic example of the precise situation that the Legislature intended to avoid when it enacted the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act (No-Fault), N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1, et seq. to provide payment for benefits for automobile accident victims. The Act requires that personal injury protection benefits (PIP) under an automobile liability policy shall be payable as the loss accrues; it permits the PIP carrier to receive reimbursement for collectible workers' compensation benefits. Plaintiffs are fortunate in having dual coverage for benefits under both PIP and workers' compensation. Unfortunately, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual), the workers' compensation (workers' comp) carrier who has undertaken
Page 194
to pay considerable benefits, has now refused to pay certain bills for tutoring, rehabilitation, physical therapy and other expenses. Plaintiffs then turned to New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJM) for PIP benefits which it declined, for the most part, to pay.Plaintiffs instituted the present suit in the Superior Court, Law Division to determine their rights. The complaint was dismissed on application of both insurance carriers. NJM contends that the Superior Court, Law Division has no jurisdiction over the matter and that exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the Workers' Compensation Court. In the meantime, because the carriers cannot agree and plaintiffs' motion in the Workers' Compensation Court for relief filed in July 1984 has yet to be heard, plaintiffs have been denied certain benefits from either or both insurance carriers. In addition to seeking PIP benefits from NJM, plaintiffs sought to compel Liberty Mutual to pay outstanding medical and related expenses pursuant to an order of the Workers' Compensation Court entered July 16, 1981.
The trial judge dismissed the complaint as to Liberty Mutual on the ground that the Division of Workers' Compensation has exclusive jurisdiction and plaintiffs' remedy is through that Court. He also held that, insofar as PIP coverage by NJM, the factual matter is analogous to that in New Jersey Manufacturers Ins. Co. v. Blau, 194 N.J.Super. 27, 475 A.2d 1278 (App.Div.1984), and therefore dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed. We agree with the dismissal of the complaint as to Liberty Mutual but reverse the dismissal as to the PIP carrier, NJM.
After filing of a notice of appeal, on September 17, 1984, plaintiffs moved for acceleration of the appeal as an emergent matter. Because of the exigencies of the case we considered this as an emergent matter and a hearing was held as a result of which on October 26, 1984 an order was entered accelerating the appeal, establishing a briefing schedule and requesting the clerk to calendar the case as soon as possible.
Page 195
On April 21, 1981, plaintiff, Tina Olivero, then 12 years of age, was seriously injured when she was struck by an automobile [488 A.2d 1073] while riding her bicycle and delivering papers for the Vineland Times Journal. As a result of head injuries she suffered from quadriparesis with ambulation, coordination and speech dysfunction. Her learning ability and memory retention has also been seriously impaired. Extensive surgery, treatment and therapy designed to minimize the effects of the injury have continued over the years since the accident and continue to the present time.
On May 11, 1981, a workers' compensation petition was filed by Tina. The compensation carrier for Vineland Times Journal is Liberty Mutual. On July 16, 1981 Liberty Mutual was directed to
supply to the petitioner all reasonable and necessary medical care necessary for her to recover from her injury suffered on April 21, 1981.
Liberty Mutual was also directed to pay the minimum temporary disability payments of $53.07 per week (Tina earned $29 per week for six and one-half hours work). As of July 17, 1984 Liberty Mutual paid a total of $157,356.58 in medical benefits alone and temporary disability payments continue.
Tina has been admitted to and treated at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia on several occasions. She has also been admitted on numerous occasions to Children's Seashore House in Atlantic City for surgery and rehabilitative treatment. Her treatments continue. In June 1984 Tina had surgery to correct the spastic condition of her toes and foot. During July and August 1984 she was an in-house patient at Children's Seashore House and received occupational and speech-language therapy. The discharge summaries from Children's Seashore House state that physical, occupational and speech therapy are to be continued at home and at Newcomb Hospital.
Tina continues treatments recommended by Dr. Gregg at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia. These treatments include tutoring, and the construction of special study, exercise, and access areas in the home.
Page 196
On September 27, 1983, Liberty Mutual sent letters to all doctors and hospitals treating Tina advising that in the future previous authorization from Liberty Mutual would be required in order to obtain payment from them for treatment rendered to Tina. At the same time Liberty Mutual informed Tina's attorney that authorization was to preclude any unnecessary or unauthorized treatment.
Plaintiff, Margaret Olivero, was informed by Children's Hospital that Liberty Mutual was not cooperating in the payment of bills and sending insurance funds. In addition she was made aware of delays in payments of other services for considerable lengths of time. Thereafter, Dr. Gregg, along with Children's and Newcomb Hospital, began billing Mrs. Olivero directly because they were unable to obtain payment from Liberty Mutual.
In February 1984, Liberty Mutual was informed that home therapy and physical therapy were recommended....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Velli v. Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co.
...and without protracted litigation, to defray the economic costs of auto accidents. Olivero by Olivero v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 199 N.J.Super. 191, 197, 488 A.2d 1071 (App.Div.1985); Hoglin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 144 N.J.Super. 475, 479-80, 366 A.2d 345 (App.Div.1976). Suits for s......
-
Lusby By and Through Nichols v. Hitchner
...workers' compensation benefits are ultimately primary to no-fault benefits. See also Olivero by Olivero v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 199 N.J.Super. 191, 488 A.2d 1071 (App.Div.1985). And see O'Boyle v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 241 N.J.Super. 503, 575 A.2d 515 (App.Div.1990), so hold......
-
Chubb Group on Behalf of Conrad v. Trenton Bd. of Educ.
...benefits promptly when due, subject, however, to its right of reimbursement. Olivero by Olivero v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins., Co., 199 N.J.Super. 191, 198, 488 A.2d 1071 (App.Div.1985), certif. denied, 115 N.J. 76, 556 A.2d 1219 (1989); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Para Mfg. Co., 176 N.J.Super. 532......
-
Lefkin v. Venturini
...action or by the filing of its own claim petition if its insured fails to do so. See Olivero by Olivero v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 199 N.J.Super. 191, 488 A.2d 1071 (App.Div.1985); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Para Mfg. Co., 176 N.J.Super. 532, 535, 424 A.2d 423 (App.Div.1980); Solimano v. C......