TRENTON, N.J., August 5 – The New Jersey State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a chipped tooth is not a fracture under New Jerseys no-fault auto insurance law.

In the words of Justice Barry Albin, the court cannot accept the argument that a minimally, or even substantially, chipped tooth is a sufficient basis for vaulting the limitation on lawsuit threshold allowed in the car insurance law.

The case resulted from a lawsuit from a car accident in Bordentown Township six years ago. Tracey Johnson suffered a neck fracture, back injuries, as well as two chipped eye teeth.

Johnson and her husband, Christopher Johnson, now residents of Florida, were awarded a $3 million judgment by a jury. That award was trimmed to $1.75 million by the trial judge.

The Johnsons appealed the issue of the chipped teeth, and their attorney argued that it constituted a fracture.

The decision by the high court was that the existing law does not define displaced fractures. The court held, Uniform authority as reflected in medical and dental texts, non-medical reference books, and case law makes it clear that the ordinary meaning and significance of a displaced fracture is the complete separation of a bone. A chipped tooth does not meet that definition.

The plaintiffs argued that because the tips of the teeth were missing they were fracture injuries under the car insurance law.

The decision was disappointing to the New Jersey State Bar Association, but hailed by the car insurance industry.

Amirali Haidn, a trustee of the State Bar Association, which had filed a friend of the court brief in the case, noted, Some chipped teeth may be a more serious injury than a finger caught in a car door.

John Tiene, vice president of the New Jersey Skylands Insurance Co., said, Clearly, if your tooth is chipped, it is not going to dramatically alter your life.

He said insurance companies pay billions each year for pain and suffering lawsuits, and that in turn increases premiums for New Jersey motorists.

Tiene said, The Legislatures intent was to try and balance compensating for various serious injuries against the reality that New Jersey provides very generous medical coverage.

The court rejected the argument that allowing plaintiff to collect non-economic damages for all injuries proximately caused by an automobile accident when any single injury satisfies a threshold category will frustrate the cost-cutting goals of the car insurance statute. The court held that that was not in fact the only goal of the Legislature.

Further, the opinion went on, It is far from certain that limiting a plaintiffs right to recover pain and suffering damages as proposed by defendant would actually decrease insurance costs. Rather it is more likely that defendants proposal would produce more litigation and perhaps an unmanageable scheme to administer.

The case is New Jersey Supreme Court 36-06 and can be obtained online at http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courtrssupremea-36-06doc.html.