Automobile Liability

The case originated from a personal injury trial in the Superior Court regarding a car accident. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's decision in part, finding that evidence of future medical expenses was inadmissible. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification and affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment. Murray v. Punina, 264 N.J. 1, 355 A.3d 242 (2026).

The plaintiff was injured as a passenger in a car accident involving Christopher Punina and Anthony Marrone. Punina was uninsured, so the plaintiff received $250,000 in PIP benefits through New Jersey Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Association (NJPLIGA) under the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgement fund. The plaintiff's medical expert estimated her future medical expenses to be between $42,000 and $160,000, which would not exhaust her PIP limits. The jury awarded Murray $250,000 in non-economic damages and $100,000 for future medical expenses, with Defendant Marrone found 20% liable. Defendant Marrone contested the admissibility of future medical expenses, arguing they were 'collectible' under PIP coverage. The applicable law is found under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, evidence of losses 'collectible or paid' under PIP coverage is inadmissible in a civil action for damages. Future medical expenses are considered 'collectible' if they fall within the available PIP limits and are eligible for payment upon incurrence. The court reasoned that allowing admission of future medical expenses within PIP limits would permit double recovery and undermine the purpose of the no-fault system. The legislature intended PIP to have the same meaning in both UCJF and No-Fault Act statutes. Future expenses are 'collectible' when eligible for payment upon incurrence, preventing plaintiffs from gaming the system by deferring treatment until after trial. The judgment against Defendant Marrone was modified to exclude the damages award for future medical expenses and the additional costs and fees under the offer of judgment rule