Case Name: MICHAEL J. BRESLIN, JR. AND BRESLIN & BRESLIN, ESQS., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1976-03-18
Citations: 69 N.J. 435
Docket Number: 
Parties: MICHAEL J. BRESLIN, JR. AND BRESLIN & BRESLIN, ESQS., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 435–442

Head Matter:
MICHAEL J. BRESLIN, JR. AND BRESLIN & BRESLIN, ESQS., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Argued January 27, 1976
Decided March 18, 1976.
Mr. Paul A. Dylcstra argued the cause for plaintiffs-appellants, (Messrs. Breslin & Breslin, attorneys).
Ms. Joan B. Sherman argued the cause for defendant-respondent.

Opinion:
Pee Cukiam.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed esentially for the reasons set forth in the well-reasoned opinion of Judge Lynch.
The plaintiffs relied substantially on Koutrakos v. Long Island College Hospital, 78 N. Y. Misc. 2d 39, 355 N. Y. S. 2d 718 (Sup. Ct. 1974) which held, inter alia, that the provision of the New York Workmen's Compensation Law which provided that in a third party action brought by the injured employee reimbursement was to be made to the workmen's compensation carrier at no expense (including attorney's fees) to it, violated the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Federal and New York Constitutions. It should be noted that the Appellate Division reversed that part of the decision. 47 A. D. 2d 500, 368 N. Y. S. 2d 528 (1975).
In Klacik v. Kovacs, 111 N. J. Super. 307, 311-312 (App. Div. 1970), certif. den. 57 N. J. 237, (1970), Judge Matthews wrote: "In the absence of statute, rule of court or contract, the mere accrual of benefits to a third party does not entitle an attorney to recover any compensation from those benefited." I-Ie pointed out that there was a diversity of opinion among the states on whether reimbursement of an insurer should be made after deduction of reasonable attorney's fees incurred in effecting the recovery. He added that "[p]ublic policy here, however, is in equipoise", but concluded the more equitable rule is to provide for such deduction. This is a far cry from holding that the contrary view is so offensive to our public policy that the foreign law should not apply.
Affirmed.