Court Opinion

ID: 9699424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:23:19.588292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:50.148475
License: Public Domain

Pashman, J.,
concurring and dissenting. I concur in the result reached by the majority and in Justice Schreiber’s reasoning with respect to the amount of PIP benefits prop*571erly due this plaintiff. Plainly, the basic PIP benefits and the additional PIP benefits for income continuation and essential services are to be cumulated. If they were not, there would be no reason for the amount of additional benefits payable to an injured insured during the period when basic benefits are payable to be reduced by the exact amount of the basic benefits. See Appendix A to N. J. A. C. 11:3-7.3, ante at 563 n. 1. The result can be no different in cases where the insured has died, and this coverage provides survivor' benefits pursuant to N. J. S. A. 39:6A-4(d).
However, I part ways with my colleagues with respect to the proper disposition of this case in light of the obvious error in the calculation of the amount of benefits payable. Plaintiff sought to collect only the maximum additional PIP benefits under Option 5 as survivor benefits, apparently believing that the amount of the basic benefits was included therein, and obtained a judgment reflecting that demand. The defendant denied any obligation to pay any more than the amount of the maximum basic PIP benefits as survivor benefits, claiming that the additional PIP benefits were not recoverable as an element thereof. Defendant chose not to argue in the alternative that if the additional PIP benefits were so recoverable, the basic PIP benefits were to be included rather than added to the additional PIP benefits. In view of its total denial that the additional PIP benefits were recoverable at all, I fail to see how the defendant would be prejudiced against our correcting the judgment entered below to reflect the proper amount of survivor benefits to which plaintiff was entitled. The defendant chose to rely exclusively on the argument most favorable to its position. It cannot be heard to complain if, after finding that argument non-meritorious, this Court, in the exercise of our original jurisdiction to make a complete determination of the appeal, B. 2:10-5, directs that the judgment entered be modified to reflect the correct amount due plaintiff in excess of the amount defendant claims is its only liability.
*572I find it inconceivable that this Court should sanction the injustice which results from the mere affirmance of a judgment in an amount erroneous as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s mistake in demanding too little is readily understandable in view of the statutory and regulatory confusion on the point, not definitively settled until today. In such circumstances, the Court is penalizing the very plaintiff whose efforts at vindicating his rights will inure to the benefit of all insureds who purchase the additional PIP coverage. Cf. Darrow v. Hanover Tp., 58 N. J. 410, 420 (1971); Willis v. Dept. of Conservation, 55 N. J. 534, 541 (1970). This is unfair.
Clieeobd and Schbmbeb, JJ., concurring in the result.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Sullivan, Clieeobd, Sohbeibee and Handles and Judge Coneobd — 6.
For modification — Justice P ashman — 1.