Court Opinion

ID: 9756130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:08:51.517864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:14.891710
License: Public Domain

STEIN, J.,
dissenting.
The Court today construes the plain language of N.J.S.A. 34:15-40 to permit a workers’ compensation lien to attach to the proceeds of an uninsured motorist policy purchased by the injured employee. I disagree and dissent for substantially the reasons set forth by Judge Shebell in Pullen v. Travelers Ins. Co., 206 N.J.Super. 227 (App.Div.1985).1 I would only add the following to his well-reasoned opinion.
The history of N.J.S.A. 34:15-40 was accurately traced by the court in Danesi v. American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 189 N.J.Super. 160, 162-63 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 94 N.J. 544 (1983):
The Workers’ Compensation Act, as originally enacted in 1911 (L.1911, c. 95), made no provisions for the reimbursement of the employer or his worker’s compensation insurance carrier out of the proceeds of any recovery from the third party responsible for the employee’s injury or death. The third-party recovery could not be used to satisfy even the yet unpaid worker’s compensation benefits previously awarded. United States Cas. Co. v. Hercules Powder Co., 4 N.J. 157, 163 (1950); Henry Steers, Inc. v. Turner, etc., Co., 104 N.J.L. 189, 193 (E. & A. 1927). Thus prior to legislative amendments discussed hereinafter, an employee could retain both worker’s compensation benefits and the proceeds recovered from a third-party action, Newark Paving Co. v. Klotz, 85 N.J.L. 432 (Sup.Ct.1914), aff’d 86 N.J.L. 690 (E. & A. 1914).
Recognizing the harshness and inequity of the act, the Legislature amended the act in 1913 (L.1913, c. 174, § 8) to provide for three changes where there is *620a third-party recovery for the same injuries and losses covered by the worker’s compensation award. These changes (1) proportionately extinguished the employer’s obligation to pay further compensation upon payment by the third-party tortfeasor, (2) created a right of reimbursement for worker’s compensation paid and (3) created a lien, when perfected, to secure reimbursement to the employer.
With minor changes in 1931 (L.1931, c. 279, § 3); 1936 (L.1936, c. 162, § 1); 1951 (£.1951, c. 169, § 1) and in 1956 (L.1956, c. 141, § 6), further refining the right to reimbursement, the controlling legislative enactments became codified as N.J.S.A. 34:15-40.
Approximately sixty years after the creation of the workers’ compensation lien, the Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. 39:6A-14,2 which requires that “[ejvery owner or registrant of an automobile registered or principally garaged” in New Jersey must be insured with uninsured motorist coverage. N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1,3 also adopted well after N.J.S.A. 34:15-40, requires that “automobile liability policies * * * include a provision that the insured or his legal representative shall be entitled to recover damages sustained in an accident with an uninsured automobile if the owner or operator of the uninsured automobile is legally responsible.” Lundy v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 92 N.J. 550, 553 (1983).
When the Legislature adopted the mandatory uninsured motorist legislation, it did not amend N.J.S.A. 34:15-40, leaving intact the critical statutory phrases “third person [who] is liable” or “his insurance carrier.” (Emphasis added.) One can hypothesize three reasons for the Legislature’s inaction: (1) the Legislature intended that the workers’ compensation lien would apply only to recoveries from a third-party tortfeasor or his insurance carrier; (2) the Legislature assumed that the provisions of N.J.S.A. 34:15-40 would be equally applicable to claims against uninsured motorists; or (3) the Legislature did not consider whether N.J.S.A. 34:15-40 should apply to uninsured *621motorist claims. The legislative history of the uninsured motorist statutes offers no basis for determining which of these explanations most accurately reflects the legislative intent.
“It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that if the language chosen by the Legislature is plain and the result is not contrary to obvious legislative intent, ‘the sole function of the court is to enforce the statute according to its terms.’ ” State v. Maguire, 84 N.J. 508, 528 (1980) (citing Sheeran v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 80 N.J. 548, 556 (1979), and quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. 192, 194, 61 L.Ed. 442, 452 (1917)). Not only is the language of this statute plain, but there is not a grain of support for the majority’s assumption that the Legislature intended that this statute be “construed” so as to apply it to claims against uninsured motorists. A thoroughly plausible explanation is that the Legislature believed that recognition of the employer’s lien was inappropriate in view of the typically low coverage limits provided by uninsured motorist policy provisions. As the court in Pullen aptly noted:
The labeling as a “double recovery” of an injured worker’s receipt of moneys from his workers’ compensation remedy as well as from a source related to the third party’s tort liability only rarely has any basis in fact. Experience demonstrates that in the majority of tort settlements a full recovery is not received because of the expense of counsel fees and litigation costs and because in most instances settlements are accepted which represent a compromise on the issues of liability, damages or both.
Indeed, in many cases if only the statutorily mandated uninsured motorist coverage of $15,000 exists the recovery may be only a small fraction of the difference between the workers’ compensation award and the actual damages suffered by an injured worker.
Further, workers’ compensation awards have always been based upon a scaled-down structure in order to reflect the certainty of recovery by all injured employees regardless of fault. In many situations recovery from both sources may not even represent a full recovery let alone a “double recovery.”
We find no evidence of any legislative intent beyond that of permitting the employer or its insurance carrier to be reimbursed where moneys may be realized from a third-party tortfeasor or his insurance carrier. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Laval, 131 N.J.Eq. 23, 26 (Ch.1942). This limited legislative intent is repeatedly noted throughout the statute. We believe the statutory language must be strictly construed as it is not only in derogation of the *622common law, but also takes from an injured worker moneys which in the absence of such statutory provision he would be entitled to.
It is not however our desire to discuss the relative merits of whether or not there should be a statutory lien which attaches to recoveries under uninsured motor vehicle coverage. To our view, that is not an issue for the courts.
Our task is to answer the question of whether or not N.J.S.A. 34:15-40 requires reimbursement to employers or their insurance carriers for workers’ compensation benefits paid in those cases where the employee has recovered under uninsured motorists’ coverage which he has himself provided. We find the statute to be clear and unambiguous on this issue. Nowhere does the statute refer to any reimbursement from any source other than a “liable third person or his insurance carrier.” Neither the Montedoro or the Colatrella courts confronted the clear language of the statute. [206 N.J.Super. at 232-33.]
If the Legislature determines that N.J.S.A. 34:15-40 should apply to claims against uninsured motorists, it is within its province to say so. Until it does, the legislative intent as to this issue is indiscernible. Accordingly, I would apply the statute as it is written, and limit its application to recoveries against third-party tortfeasors and their insurance carriers.
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices POLLOCK, CLIFFORD, HANDLER, O’HERN, and GARIBALDI— 6.
For reversal — Justice STEIN — 1.

 Pullen is summarily reversed by the majority today. Ante at 618-19.

 N.J.S.A. 39:6A-14 became effective on January 1, 1973.

 L.1968, c. 385, § 2. Amended by L.1972, c. 204, § 1; L.1983, c. 65, § 5, eff. Jan. 1, 1983, operative Jan. 1, 1984; L.1983, c. 362, § 1, eff. Oct. 4, 1983.