
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, recently held, in N. J. Transit Corp v. Sanchez, No. A-0761-17T3, 2018 N.J. Super. LEXIS 168 (December 4, 2018), that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-40(f) (Section 40) of New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), workers’ compensation carriers have, without question, the independent right to seek reimbursement from negligent tortfeasors for economic damages. The court’s ruling cleared up years of confusion regarding the scope of recoverability of workers’ compensation subrogation liens. As noted by the court, a carrier’s workers’ compensation lien is NOT affected by New Jersey’s verbal threshold and no-fault statutes.
The underlying matter in N.J. Transit Corp involved an injured worker, David Mercogliano (Mecogliano), who was involved in a motor vehicle collision during the course and scope of his employment. New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT) owned the vehicle driven by Mercogliano. Mercogliano’s personal automobile insurance policy provided $250,000 in Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits and was subject to the verbal threshold limitations set forth in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8, which is part of New Jersey’s Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act (AICRA), N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1 to 35, et. seq. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8, New Jersey residents who opt for the lower premium verbal threshold, also known as the “limitation on lawsuit,” are unable to file civil lawsuits to obtain financial compensation for pain and suffering damages unless their injuries fall under certain categories: (1) death; (2) dismemberment; (3) loss of a fetus; (4) significant disfigurement or scarring; (5) displaced fractures; or (6) permanent injury.
As a direct result of Mercogliano’s injuries and lost wages, NJT’s workers’ compensation carrier issued $33,625.70 in workers' compensation benefits to and/or on behalf of Mercogliano. The payments were comprised of medical benefits, temporary indemnity benefits, and permanent indemnity benefits.
NJT initiated an independent subrogation action pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-40(f) (Section 40) of the WCA, which gives a workers’ compensation carrier the right to file a direct action in the name of the injured worker against third-party tortfeasors for recovery of the workers’ compensation lien. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-40(f), a subrogating carrier is permitted to seek the full extent of the injured worker’s damages in the action against the tortfeasor, over and above the Section 40 lien itself. The additional money recovered, less fees and costs, goes directly to the injured worker. However, the parties in N. J. Transit Corp stipulated that the injuries sustained by Mercogliano did not pierce the AICRA verbal threshold. Accordingly, if Mercogliano had sued the defendants directly, he could not have recovered for noneconomic damages (pain and suffering) in his personal injury case.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the case in its entirety, arguing that Mercogliano was fully compensated by the workers’ compensation carrier for his medical expenses and wage loss and he was not entitled to recover for any noneconomic losses. In granting the defendants’ motion and dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the motion judge held that AICRA trumped the WCA and that NJT did not have an independent right to subrogate against the tortfeasor when the injured employee could not establish a cause of action against the tortfeasor.
Under AICRA, the primary payment of first party benefits comes from an injured party’s own PIP insurer. However, if the injury arises out of a work-related accident, payment of such benefits comes from the employer/workers’ compensation carrier. Although the trial court noted that a “[d]efendant’s liability is not affected by the fortuitous circumstance that plaintiff was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits,” the court also stated that “[t]he compensation carrier’s rights rise no higher than the employee’s rights to which it is subrogated.” Thus, the trial court held that the verbal threshold noted in AICRA barred NJT’s lien claim. To reach its decision, the trial court distinguished other cases in which the plaintiffs pierced the verbal threshold, secured recoveries, and repaid the Section 40 liens, finding it “‘appropriate that the lien on economic damages paid by the workers’ compensation carrier [was] satisfied’ by the plaintiffs’ respective recoveries.”
NJT appealed, arguing that a workers’ compensation carrier’s right of reimbursement is governed by the WCA not AICRA.
The New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that a workers' compensation carrier is permitted to pursue its claim for reimbursement of workers’ compensation benefits against third-party tortfeasors. The appellate court further held that under Section 40, “[a] workers' compensation carrier is entitled to reimbursement whether or not the employee is fully compensated." As noted by the appellate court, a workers' compensation carrier has an independent right to seek reimbursement from the tortfeasor pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-40(f). The court elaborated further by stating that AICRA was enacted 87 years after the WCA and if the Legislature intended to treat workers injured in automobile accidents differently than workers injured in any other manner, it would have unambiguously expressed as much.
The ruling in N.J. Transit Corp stands to be a significant case for subrogating workers’ compensation carriers and is a clear reaffirmation of the sanctity of the WCA and the ability of carriers to recover from third-party tortfeasors. By setting a clear precedent for future workers’ compensation subrogation actions, the court unambiguously barred both plaintiffs and defendants alike from utilizing AICRA as a preclusive tool to prevent full recoveries on workers’ compensation liens.
The workers’ compensation carrier still needs to be wary of those scenarios in which an injured worker files his/her own action and is found not to pierce the verbal threshold, which likely could result in a dismissal. In those instances, in order to assure adequate protection, a subrogating carrier would be wise to contemplate intervention in an effort to seek, independently, its right to reimbursement. While intervention is not always favored in New Jersey, the reasoning found in N.J. Transit Corp provides the substantive and procedural basis for seeking and gaining entry into the litigation.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- CPSC Recalls
- Construction Defects
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- Minnesota
- California
- Experts – Daubert
- Maryland
- Jurisdiction
- CPSC Warning
- Rhode Island
- Experts - Reliability
- Podcast
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Workers' Compensation
- Uncategorized
- Negligence
- New York
- Contracts
- Cargo - Transportation
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Arbitration
- Texas
- Pennsylvania
- AIA Contracts
- Evidence
- Florida
- Economic Loss Rule
- Malpractice
- Wyoming
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Water Loss
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Arkansas
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Product Liability
- Arizona
- Certificate of Merit
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Oklahoma
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Georgia
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Limitation of Liability
- Mississippi
- Made Whole
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Massachusetts
- Landlord
- Tenant
- Building Code
- Causation
- Architects-Engineers
Tags
- Subrogation
- Products Liability
- Construction Defects
- Product Liability
- Podcast
- Minnesota
- California
- Subro Sessions
- Experts
- Jurisdiction
- Maryland
- Texas
- Statute of Repose
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Experts – Daubert
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Rhode Island
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Contracts
- Negligence
- Civil Procedure
- Landlord-Tenant
- Experts - Reliability
- Pennsylvania
- Georgia
- Certificate of Merit
- Louisiana
- Amazon-eBay
- Made Whole
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- New York
- Florida
- Construction Contracts
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Illinois
- Experts – Qualifications
- New Jersey
- Parties
- Ohio
- Right to Repair Act
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Arizona
- Sutton Doctrine
- West Virginia
- Indiana
- Design Defect
- Spoliation
- Water Damage
- Evidence
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Connecticut
- Damages
- Privity
- Condominiums
- Massachusetts
- Tennessee
- Statute of Limitations
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Limitation of Liability
- Apportionment
- Expert Qualifications
- Exculpatory Clause
- Amazon
- Arbitration
- Negligence – Duty
- Wisconsin
- Workers’ Compensation
- Public Policy
- Missouri
- Negligent Undertaking
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Delaware
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Indemnification
- Architects-Engineers
- Washington
- AIA Contract
- Warranty - Implied
- Res Judicata
- Settlement
- Statute of Limitations - Repose
- Improvement
- Michigan
- Malpractice
- Idaho
- Internet Sales
- Non-Party at Fault
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Gross Negligence
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Mississippi
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Independent Duty
- Cargo-Transportation
- Contribution
- Implied Warranty of Habitability
- Warranty - Construction
- North Carolina
- Utah
- Standing
- Comparative Fault
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Res Ipsa
- New Mexico
- Contracts - Formation
- Unconscionable
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Nevada
- Virginia
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Lithium-ion battery
- Burden of Proof
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- New Hampshire
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Insurable Interest
- Joint-Tortfeasors
- Arkansas
- Kentucky
- Daubert
- Fire - Cigarettes
- Colorado
- Causation
- Third Party
- Discovery-Sanctions
- Accepted Work
- Malfunction Theory
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Privilege
- Betterment
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Insurance Coverage
- First Party Claims
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- Products Liability - Foreseeability
- Discovery - Experts
- MCS-90
- Substantial Completion
- Reimbursement
- Assignment
- Counterclaim
- Products Liability; Malfunction Theory
- Economic Loss Rule
- Unfair Trade Practices
- Evidence – Probative Value
- Parties – Real Party in Interest
- Status of Repose
- Evidence - Public
- Construction Defects - Fixtures
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Additional Insured
- Trespass
- Contract
- COVID-19
- Incorporation by Reference
- Damages – Emotional Distress
- Oregon
- Third Party Spoliation
- No-Fault Subrogation
- Products Liability; Mississippi
- Inverse Condemnation
- Jury Instructions
- Food and Beverage
- South Carolina
- California Court of Appeals Holds Subrogating Carrier Cannot Assert Claims of Its Suspended Insured
- Debt Collection
- Medical Benefits
- Montreal Convention
- Immunity
- Products Li
- Wyoming
- Release
- Liens
- Kansas
Authors
Archives
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- December 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- February 2013