SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5281-17T2

JULIA MORENO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ILEANA LISSETH PULIDO

MONTOYA, MIGUEL 

CENTENO, ALONZO RAWLS

and GPU ENERGY, 

Defendants.

______________________________

ILEANA PULIDO MONTOYA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALONZO RAWLS and 

GPU ENERGY, 

Defendants.

______________________________

NATIONWIDE INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF AMERICA and

NATIONWIDE INSURANCE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-5281-17T2

COMPANY OF AMERICA a/s/o

JULIA MORENO and ILENA

LISSETH PULIDO MONTOYA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

ALONZO RAWLS and 

GPU ENERGY,

Defendants-Respondents.

_______________________________

Argued May 30, 2019 – Decided July 31, 2019

Before Judges Simonelli, Whipple and Firko.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Monmouth County, Docket Nos. L-3240-13, 

L-3303-13, and L-3327-13.

George A. Prutting, Jr., argued the cause for appellants 

(Prutting & Lombardi, attorneys; Marilou Lombardi, on 

the briefs).

Stephen A. Rudolph argued the cause for respondents 

(Rudolph & Kayal, attorneys; Stephen A. Rudolph, on 

the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Nationwide Insurance Company of America (Nationwide)

appeals from a February 19, 2016 order granting partial summary judgment to 

plaintiff Julia Moreno and defendant Ileana Lisseth Pulido Montoya in this 
3

A-5281-17T2

personal injury protection (PIP) reimbursement action requiring Nationwide to 

pay the statutory minimum amount of $15,000 per claimant under N.J.S.A. 

17:28-1.4 (the Deemer statute), and ordering GPU Energy1to reimburse 

Nationwide the sum of $30,000. We affirm but remand to the trial court for 

entry of a modified order to accurately reflect the verbal rulings placed on the 

record.

I.

On September 2, 2011, Montoya was operating a 1994 Honda Accord

owned by her live-in boyfriend, defendant Miguel Centeno, in Deal, New Jersey. 

The Honda Accord was registered to Centeno in North Carolina and insured by 

Nationwide. Montoya's vehicle struck a vehicle registered to JCP&L, which 

was being operated by its employee, defendant Alonzo Rawls. Moreno was a 

passenger in Montoya's vehicle at the time of the accident. Montoya gave the 

investigating police officer a Maryland driver's license that indicated she lived 

in Silver Springs. The police report states that the vehicle's owner, Centeno,

resided in Charlotte, North Carolina. Centeno's vehicle was insured by 

 

1

 GPU Energy's answer to the complaint designated it as "Jersey Central Power 

and Light Company, i/i/a GPU Energy." We will refer to this defendant as 

JCP&L.
4

A-5281-17T2

Nationwide, he was listed as the policyholder, and Montoya was listed as an 

insured driver. 

The record indicates Montoya and Centeno lived together in North 

Carolina from 2003 to 2009, then moved to Maryland for two months, and then 

to Asbury Park in 2009, where they have resided ever since. In procuring his 

automobile policy, Centeno represented to Nationwide that he was married to 

Montoya, resided in North Carolina, and used a proxy in North Carolina to 

forward his mail to New Jersey while he lived in Asbury Park.

Montoya and Moreno sustained injuries and underwent medical treatment 

and fusion surgeries, each ultimately exhausting the $250,000 PIP limit. 

Nationwide determined that Montoya and Moreno were each entitled to 

$250,000 in PIP benefits. Nationwide filed a PIP reimbursement complaint 

against JCP&L under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1. The judge consolidated Nationwide's 

complaint with the personal injury actions filed on behalf of Montoya and 

Moreno. Montoya settled her bodily injury claim with JCP&L and Rawls in 

March 2017, and Moreno's claim was tried and concluded on June 12, 2018.

JCP&L and Rawls (movants) filed a motion for summary judgment in 

December 2015 arguing: (1) North Carolina law barred a PIP subrogation action

in New Jersey; and (2) Nationwide violated North Carolina law by issuing a 
5

A-5281-17T2

policy of insurance to Centeno because he misrepresented the following facts to 

Nationwide:

 He was residing in North Carolina with Montoya.

 He and Montoya garaged all of their vehicles in North Carolina.

 He and Montoya were married to each other.

Movants argued that, in February 2011, Centeno and Montoya were 

permanently residing and working in New Jersey. Since 2009, they garaged all 

of their vehicles in this State. In further support of their motion, movants argued 

Nationwide committed underwriting errors by issuing a policy to Centeno 

without first obtaining a signed, written application from him, resulting in the

contested PIP payment of $500,000 being made, which Nationwide seeks to 

recoup from JCP&L, who is self-insured. As a result of another accident, which 

occurred prior to the September 2, 2011 accident, Nationwide inquired why 

Centeno was living in New Jersey. Centeno advised Kevin Braswell, a personal 

lines underwriting manager employed by Nationwide, that Centeno was living 

in Asbury Park temporarily for two months because his brother found him 

employment as a floor installer. Centeno advised Braswell that he was still 

domiciled in North Carolina, prompting Braswell to prepare an adverse risk 

report.
6

A-5281-17T2

Centeno brought five vehicles from North Carolina to New Jersey. He

never registered any of them in New Jersey, and never obtained New Jersey 

license plates for them. He testified that the Honda Accord was principally 

garaged in this State at all times up to the date of the subject accident. He never 

advised Nationwide that he moved to New Jersey because he did not "want to 

change the insurance, [h]e want[ed] to keep it." Nationwide mailed monthly 

statements to Centeno's son at his residence in North Carolina, and in turn, 

Centeno's son forwarded them to his father in New Jersey. Since 2009, Centeno 

has received water and electric bills at his Asbury Park residence.

Further, movants argued that North Carolina does not require PIP 

coverage and does not permit PIP subrogation; consequently, there was no PIP 

coverage provided under the Nationwide policy because PIP coverage was not 

mandated. The record reveals Centeno and Montoya never paid for PIP 

premiums in any state. Because of material misrepresentations made by Centeno 

and Montoya to Nationwide, movants argued Centeno's North Carolina 

insurance policy should be deemed void. Alternatively, movants argued 

Nationwide "overpaid" PIP benefits to Moreno and Montoya, and Nationwide

should have only paid the New Jersey statutory minimum PIP benefit of $15,000 

per person, for a total of $30,000.
7

A-5281-17T2

At oral argument, Nationwide's counsel argued "[f]or whatever reason[,]" 

Nationwide paid New Jersey PIP benefits to Montoya and Moreno, to which the 

motion judge responded, "they were wrong." Nationwide's counsel also argued 

that Centeno and Montoya "were somewhat living in [New] Jersey" at the time 

of the accident. 

The judge found Centeno and Montoya moved from Maryland to New 

Jersey and brought five vehicles with them, but never registered or obtained 

New Jersey license plates for them. The judge ordered:

(1) "the maximum amount of the PIP subrogation claim 

by [Nationwide] is the New Jersey statutory minimum 

PIP amount of $15,000 per person, per accident;"

(2) Montoya is "afforded the New Jersey statutory PIP 

limit of $15,000"; 

(3) "Moreno, as an innocent third-party, is afforded the 

New Jersey statutory PIP limit of $15,000";

(4) The total PIP subrogation claim against JCP&L is, 

therefore, $30,000;2and 

(5) JCP&L "is not responsible for the internal errors 

and omissions made by [Nationwide] in making PIP 

overpayments in excess of the above amounts"

 

2

 The judge noted in her order the $30,000 "is for the PIP benefits available for 

[p]laintiff Julia Moreno only[.]" Since this order contains handwritten changes 

on a proposed form order submitted by counsel for JCP&L, we consider it a 

ministerial error.
8

A-5281-17T2

(referring to the amounts in the preceding paragraphs 

of the order).

The judge denied summary judgment insofar as movants sought a ruling 

that North Carolina law barred a PIP subrogation action and North Carolina 

statutes were violated in respect of issuance of the policy of insurance by 

Nationwide to Centeno and sought dismissal of the PIP reimbursement

complaint with prejudice because the subject policy should be declared void ab 

initio based on Centeno and Montoya's misrepresentations. The judge granted 

partial summary judgment to JCP&L and determined that each claimant was 

entitled to $15,000 in PIP benefits, thereby capping JCP&L's obligation at 

$30,000 in the aggregate, payable to Nationwide.

On appeal, Nationwide argues the judge erred in: (1) finding the amount 

of PIP benefits an out-of-state insurer must afford to PIP claimants is the 

statutory minimum under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.3(e); (2) awarding Moreno and 

Montoya $15,000 each in PIP benefits; and (3) finding Nationwide mistakenly 

provided PIP coverage of $250,000 to each claimant. JCP&L has agreed to pay 

the $30,000 amount and did not file a cross-appeal relative to the applicability 

of the Deemer statute. Therefore, we limit our discussion to the issues raised in 

Nationwide's appeal.
9

A-5281-17T2

II.

We review a court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the 

same standard as the trial court. Conley v. Guerrero, 228 N.J. 339, 346 (2017). 

Summary judgment must "be granted 'if the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show 

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the 

moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law.'" Templo 

Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 224 N.J. 189, 

199 (2016) (quoting R. 4:46-2(c)).

Nationwide first argues the judge erred in finding the amount of PIP 

benefits an out-of-state insurer must afford to PIP claimants is the $15,000 

statutory minimum found at N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.3, which provides in relevant part:

Personal injury protection coverage options. With 

respect to personal injury protection coverage provided 

on an automobile in accordance with [N.J.S.A. 39:6A4], the automobile insurer shall provide the following 

coverage options:

. . . .

e. Medical expense benefits in amounts of $150,000, 

$75,000, $50,000 or $15,000 per person per accident; 

except that, medical expense benefits shall be paid in 

an amount not to exceed $250,000 for all medically 

necessary treatment of permanent or significant brain 

injury, spinal cord injury or disfigurement or for 
10 A-5281-17T2

medically necessary treatment of other permanent or 

significant injuries rendered at a trauma center or acute 

care hospital immediately following the accident and 

until the patient is stable, no longer requires critical 

care and can be safely discharged or transferred to 

another facility in the judgment of the attending 

physician. 

According to Nationwide, the judge erred as a matter of law because the 

Deemer statute, which the judge found applicable here, mandates standard New 

Jersey PIP benefits of up to $250,000 per person per accident, and not $15,000 

per person as determined by the judge. Nationwide contends the judge also 

mistakenly found Nationwide erroneously determined the amount of PIP 

coverage payable on behalf of Moreno and Montoya, and that JCP&L was not 

responsible for Nationwide's mistake.

At the outset, Nationwide argues there are inconsistencies between the 

judge's oral opinion and her handwritten changes to the proposed order prepared 

by JCP&L. For example, Nationwide argues the judge clearly ruled that JCP&L 

had no standing to raise any issues in respect of material misrepresentations 

made by Centeno, but the judge wrote in her order that $15,000 in PIP benefits

are to be paid to Moreno "'as an innocent bystander,' [but the] reference to being 

an innocent bystander to any material misrepresentation[] [was] something the 

court had actually declined to rule on due to the issues of standing."
11 A-5281-17T2

Nationwide also points to paragraph eight of the order, which contains 

edits by the judge providing that Nationwide's claim against JCP&L is $30,000, 

for PIP benefits available for Moreno only. Nationwide argues this paragraph 

contradicts paragraph six, which ordered that $15,000 be paid to Montoya, along 

with paragraph seven, which ordered the same amount to Moreno, for an 

aggregate sum of $30,000.

Our careful review of the record reveals the order is inconsistent on its 

face and does not accurately reflect the judge's oral decision. Nonetheless, 

Nationwide does not argue the outcome is reversible error because the record 

clearly reflects the judge's decision that the effect of the order was to limit the 

PIP award to $15,000 for both Moreno and Montoya, for an aggregate total of 

$30,000, and we agree. We conclude these inconsistencies are scrivener's errors

and are not grounds for reversal. On remand, we direct the judge to issue an 

amended order to accurately comport with her verbal opinion.

III.

Nationwide next argues the judge erred in limiting the amount of available 

PIP benefits to $15,000 for each claimant and the correct amount should be 

$250,000. We disagree. 
12 A-5281-17T2

"'PIP' is the popularly used acronym for personal injury protection 

benefits, a package of benefits required by statute to be provided with every 

insurance policy for a private passenger automobile registered or garaged in this 

[S]tate." Craig & Pomeroy, Current N.J. Auto Insurance Law § 4:1 (2019)

(hereinafter Craig & Pomeroy). The purpose of the PIP scheme "was to provide 

a prompt source of first-party recovery for losses sustained in automobile 

accidents. Under the prior system . . . a victim . . . waited many years to have 

his claim processed through the courts" and, as a result, the reimbursements for 

their injuries were delayed and often inadequate. Ibid. The Legislature 

responded by enacting the 1972 No Fault Act. "Thus, the PIP law mandates 

speedy first-party payment of a range of benefits, including medical expenses, 

lost wages, essential services, survivor benefits and funeral expenses to certain 

classes of persons injured . . . without any consideration of fault[.]" Ibid.

The required coverage must be "the primary coverage for the named

insured and any resident relative in the named insured's household who is not a

named insured under an automobile insurance policy of his own." N.J.S.A.

39:6A-4.2. This "first-party coverage was 'intended to serve as the exclusive

remedy for payment of out-of-pocket medical expenses arising from an

automobile accident.'" Walcott v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 376 N.J. Super. 384,
13 A-5281-17T2

386, 388 (App. Div. 2005) (quoting Caviglia v. Royal Tours of Am., 178 N.J. 

460, 466 (2004)) (permitting a PIP claim by "an insured motorist who was

intoxicated at the time of the accident").

With regard to residency and timing, N.J.S.A. 39:3-17.1(b) requires that:

Any person who becomes a resident of this State and 

who immediately prior thereto was authorized to 

operate and drive a motor vehicle . . . in this State as a 

nonresident pursuant to [N.J.S.A.] 39:3-15 and 

[N.J.S.A.] 39:3-17, shall register any vehicle operated 

on the public highways of this State within [sixty] days 

of so becoming a resident of New Jersey, pursuant to 

[N.J.S.A.] 39:3-4 or [N.J.S.A. 39:3-8.1].

In short, "N.J.S.[A]. 39:6A-4.5[(a)] bars the culpably uninsured (those 

vehicle owners required by statute to maintain PIP coverage but who have failed 

to do so) when injured while operating an uninsured vehicle." Craig & Pomeroy 

§ 15:5-2 (2019); see also Perrelli v. Pastorelle, 206 N.J. 193, 202-03 (2011) 

(rejecting plaintiff's argument that her belief that the vehicle was insured was 

enough to preclude the operation of this paragraph).

Furthermore, New Jersey has a strong public policy against the

proliferation of insurance fraud. Palisades Safety & Ins. Ass'n v. Bastien, 175

N.J. 144, 151 (2003). The State also has a strong public policy of compensating

third parties for losses sustained in automobile accidents. See id. at 152; Fisher

v. N.J. Auto. Full Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, 224 N.J. Super. 552, 557-58 (App.
14 A-5281-17T2

Div. 1988). In other words, "[a] strong public policy favors the protection of

the Fund's[3]financial integrity, and thus, the Fund must 'be administered in a

fashion to assure that only those persons legitimately entitled to participate in

its benefits are paid therefrom.'" Esdaile v. Hartsfield, 245 N.J. Super. 591, 595

(App. Div. 1991) (citation omitted) (quoting Douglas v. Harris, 35 N.J. 270, 279

(1961)), rev'd on other grounds, 126 N.J. 426 (1992).

The judge found the insurance policy issued by Nationwide to Centeno is 

subject to the Deemer statute, which states, in pertinent part that:

Any insurer authorized to transact or transacting 

automobile or motor vehicle insurance business in this 

State, or controlling or controlled by, or under common 

control by, or with, an insurer authorized to transact or 

transacting insurance business in this State, which sells 

a policy providing automobile or motor vehicle liability 

insurance coverage, or any similar coverage, in any 

other state or in any province of Canada, shall include 

in each policy coverage to satisfy at least the [PIP]

benefits coverage pursuant to [N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4] or 

[N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.3] for any New Jersey resident who 

is not required to maintain [PIP] coverage pursuant to 

[N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4] or [N.J.S.A. 39:6A-3.1] and who is 

not otherwise eligible for such benefits, whenever the 

automobile or motor vehicle insured under the policy is 

used or operated in this State. In addition, any insurer 

authorized to transact or transacting automobile or 

motor vehicle insurance business in this State, or 

controlling or controlled by, or under common control 

 

3

 Referring to the fund created by the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund

Law, N.J.S.A. 39:6-61 to -90.
15 A-5281-17T2

by, or with, an insurer authorized to transact or 

transacting automobile or motor vehicle insurance 

business in this State, which sells a policy providing 

automobile or motor vehicle liability insurance 

coverage, or any similar coverage, in any other state or 

in any province of Canada, shall include in each policy 

coverage to satisfy at least the liability insurance 

requirements of [N.J.S.A. 39:6B-1] or [N.J.S.A. 39:6A3], the uninsured motorist insurance requirements of 

[N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1], and [PIP] benefits coverage 

pursuant to [N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4] or [N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.3],

whenever the automobile or motor vehicle insured 

under the policy is used or operated in this State.

"The Deemer [s]tatute is so named because it 'deems' New Jersey insurance 

coverage and tort limitations to apply to out-of-state policies." George J. Kenny 

& Frank A. Lattal, New Jersey Insurance Law § 14-6:6 (2019) (footnote 

omitted). In analyzing a policy under the Deemer statute, AICRA4 provided for 

the creation of two insurance coverage options: a basic policy and a standard 

policy. A standard policy is defined as:

one with at least the coverage required by N.J.S.A. 

39:6A-3 and [-4]. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-3 mandates 

compulsory automobile insurance liability limits of 

$15,000[] on account of injury to or death of one person 

in any one accident, a limit of $30,000[] for injury to or 

death of more than one person in any one accident and 

$5,000[] for damage to property in any one accident, all 

exclusive of interests and costs. 

[Id. at § 14-10.]

 

4

 Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1.1 to -35.
16 A-5281-17T2

Where the Deemer statute is inapplicable, an ordinary choice of law 

analysis applies when there is a conflict with New Jersey insurance law. Id. at 

§ 21-10. As a general rule, the law of the place of the contract will govern the

determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties under an insurance policy

"unless the dominant and significant relationship of another state to the parties

and the underlying issue dictates" otherwise. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.

Estate of Simmons, 84 N.J. 28, 37 (1980); see also Gen. Metalcraft, Inc. v.

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 796 F. Supp. 794, 796-97 (D.N.J. 1992) (quoting State

Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 84 N.J. at 35) ("[T]his rule will generally comport

with the reasonable expectations of the parties concerning the principal situs of

the insured risk during the term of the policy and will furnish needed certainty

and consistency in the selection of the applicable law."); Polarome Mfg. Co. v.

Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co., 310 N.J. Super. 168, 173 (App. Div. 1998). In the

insurance law arena, courts must focus on the parties' "justified expectations and

their needs for predictability of result." Pfizer, Inc. v. Emp'rs Ins. of Wausau,

154 N.J. 187, 199 (1998). "Auto insurance policies are [generally] written to

satisfy particular states' requirements for autos registered and garaged there."

Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 234 N.J. Super. 202, 205

(App. Div. 1989).
17 A-5281-17T2

Choice of law is a matter of law which we review de novo. N. Jersey

Neurosurgical Assocs., P.A. v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 401 N.J. Super. 186,

191 (App. Div. 2008). As the forum state, New Jersey's choice of law principles

apply. Rowe v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 189 N.J. 615, 621 (2007); Erny v.

Estate of Merola, 171 N.J. 86, 94 (2002); Moper Transp., Inc. v. Norbet

Trucking Corp., 399 N.J. Super. 146, 153 (App. Div. 2008). Our State employs

the most significant relationship test in resolving choice of law questions in tort

actions. See In re Accutane Litig., 235 N.J. 229, 260 (2018). In Calabotta v.

Philbro Animal Health Corp., ___ N.J. Super. ___, ___ (App. Div. 2019), we

analyzed which state "has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and

the parties under the principles stated in § 6." Second Restatement § 145(1),

(2). Those contacts include

(a) the place where the injury occurred,

(b) the place where the conduct causing the injury

occurred,

(c) the domicil[e], residence, nationality, place of

incorporation and place of business of the parties, and

(d) the place where the relationship, if any, between

the parties is centered."

[Calabotta, __ N.J. Super. at __ (slip op. at 19) (quoting

Second Restatement § 145(2)).]
18 A-5281-17T2

Here, the judge ruled:

JCP&L argues that North Carolina law governs the 

dispute because of the policy's choice of law provision. 

North Carolina has an anti-subrogation law, [11 N.C. 

Admin. Code 12.0319 (2019)][,] which provides that, 

"Life or accident and health insurance forms shall not 

contain a provision allowing subrogation of benefits." 

This would prohibit Nationwide's subrogation action.

"Ordinarily when parties to a contract have agreed to be 

governed by the law of a particular state, New Jersey 

[c]ourts will uphold the contractual choice if it does not 

violate New Jersey's public policy." Instructional 

[Sys.], [Inc.] [v.] [Comput.] Curriculum Corp., 130 N.J. 

324, 341 (1992). 

In this case however the choice of law provision does 

not control since . . . JCP&L and Rawls were not parties 

to the policy contract.

Based on this reasoning, the judge correctly rejected JCP&L's argument 

that Centeno's alleged fraudulent misrepresentations subjected his policy to 

rescission by JCP&L.

Nationwide argues the standard automobile liability policy under N.J.S.A. 

39:6A-4 means and includes payment of medical expenses of up to $250,000 per 

person per accident but, in spite of this, the judge erroneously determined the 

minimum statutory amount of PIP found elsewhere in the no-fault statute would 

dictate the amount of PIP coverage that Nationwide was obligated to pay on 

behalf of Moreno and Montoya. Moreover, Nationwide posits the provision that 
19 A-5281-17T2

the court relied on, "Personal injury protection coverage options," N.J.S.A. 

39:6A-4.3, is not incorporated into the Deemer statute; therefore, the judge 

erroneously "conflated two separate statutes[:] N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4, which 

provides for standard PIP coverage and is incorporated into the Deemer [s]tatute, 

and N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.3(e), which allows New Jersey consumers to purchase 

certain optional coverages[.]"

In her decision, the judge relied upon Cooper Hospital University Medical

Center v. Prudential Insurance Company, 378 N.J. Super. 510, 515 (App. Div. 

2005), where we held that the policy is required to provide "minimum 'standard 

policy' PIP benefits, as required by N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4." The judge went on to 

find that $15,000 is 

the amount that Nationwide would be entitled to seek 

as reimbursement. The fact that it paid more than the 

statutory requirement was done at its own risk. And 

JCP&L should not be caused to bear the cost 

voluntarily incurred by Nationwide and which did not 

fall within the requirements of [N.J.S.A.] 39:6A-9.1.

We agree. Nationwide mistakenly construes the judge's decision by 

generalizing that $15,000 is the only sum an out-of-state insured may seek in 

PIP compensation under the Deemer statute.
20 A-5281-17T2

"Subrogation[5]is an equitable doctrine that permits a party paying a loss 

incurred by a second party to step into the shoes of that second party and exercise 

any rights the second party may have against a wrongdoer whose conduct caused 

or contributed to the loss." Craig & Pomeroy § 25:3-1 (2019). "The 

[subrogation] rights acquired by insurers . . . depend entirely on the rights their 

insureds would have against the tortfeasor." Ibid.

The underpinning of subrogation is its derivative 

nature.

. . . . 

Consequently, the insurer can take nothing by 

subrogation but the rights of the insured, and is 

subrogated to only such rights as the insured possesses. 

This principle has been frequently expressed in the 

form that the rights of the insurer against the wrongdoer 

cannot rise higher than the rights of the insured against 

such wrongdoer, since the insurer as subrogee, in 

contemplation of law, stands in the place of the insured 

and succeeds to whatever rights he may have in the 

matter . . . . 

Furthermore, it is immaterial whether the subrogor's 

cause of action is created by statute, arises because of 

judicially ascribed equities or exists because of a 

conventional agreement of the parties. 

[Ibid. (quoting Aetna Ins. Co. v. Gilchrist Bros., Inc., 

85 N.J. 550, 560-61 (1981)).]

 

5

In New Jersey, subrogation and PIP reimbursement claims are often referred

to as PIP reimbursement claims.
21 A-5281-17T2

Here, the judge aptly found Nationwide, as subrogor on behalf of Moreno 

and Montoya, was only entitled to seek $15,000 for each victim, for a combined 

total of $30,000, because that is the minimum amount its subrogees were entitled 

to as a matter of right. Any less than $15,000 would have been violative of their 

rights under the Deemer statute, and any more than $250,000 would violate the 

Deemer statute maximum. It is unclear why Nationwide paid full PIP benefits 

to the victims, but payment of the $250,000 amount by Nationwide does not 

create a right of subrogation of the maximum amounts reimbursable to 

Nationwide. Nationwide cannot shift its underwriting mistake to JCP&L.

IV.

Nationwide next argues the judge erred in finding Nationwide mistakenly 

provided PIP coverage of $250,000 per victim because testimony from Braswell 

does not support this conclusion, whereas the judge found it did. The judge 

stated:

Braswell testified in this matter that while New Jersey 

has PIP, North Carolina does not. And it appears that 

the record would support a finding that Nationwide 

erroneously determined that it was obligated under the 

circumstances of this case to provide PIP benefits to 

Montoya and Moreno, notwithstanding the fact that 

there's no PIP coverage under the policy. And that their 

required limit under that circumstance would be 

$250,000. 
22 A-5281-17T2

Nationwide does little more than allege that the judge made an incorrect, 

factual conclusion and it simply rests on its argument without drawing a tangible 

nexus between the purported error and the judge's conclusion that Nationwide 

was not entitled to a full PIP reimbursement from JCP&L. Saliently, whether 

Nationwide's decision to provide full PIP benefits was mistaken or not, it does 

not change the outcome here, and we do not perceive any reversible error.

We have carefully reviewed Nationwide's remaining arguments and have 

determined they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written 

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed and remanded for the judge to issue an amended order to

comport with her verbal opinion.