Because New Jersey Law Applies, New York PIP Arb is Dismissed

In the Matter of the Arbitration between: Kazu Acupucture, PC and Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance
Company

This New York PIP arbitration was dismissed without prejudice because the arbitrator found that the claimant was a New Jersey resident with a New Jersey insurance policy, and therefore the claim was governed by New Jersey law. —LNR

The claim for services rendered November 23, 2015 through January 13, 2016, arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 19, 2015.

The injured person/assignor was a 28-year-old female involved in the subject motor vehicle accident.

The within applicant seeks to obtain benefits from a New Jersey policy of insurance issued to a vehicle registered to a New Jersey address. The policy of insurance references that the husband and wife resided at an address in New Brunswick, New Jersey. They also acquired a renter’s insurance policy bundled with the policy of insurance. The policy was renewed in June, 2015. Since the insurance policy was written in New Jersey, the insureds reside in New Jersey and the contract of insurance was signed in New Jersey, respondent argues that the “center of gravity” is New Jersey and thus the claim must be dismissed as New Jersey law governs.

The use of “center of gravity” or “grouping of contracts” is the appropriate analytical approach to choice of law questions in contract cases. See, Zurich Ins. Co. v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. 84 NY2d 309 (1994). The court applies a center of gravity or grouping of contracts analysis in order to determine which state has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties. In Allstate Ins. Co. v. Stolarz, 81 NY2d 219 (1993), the court found that there was no conflict between New York and New Jersey law in that case, but even if there was a conflict, New Jersey law governs because of the significant contacts to New Jersey. New Jersey was the place where the contract was negotiated and made, the parties to the contract were both in New Jersey and the vehicle was registered in New Jersey. See, also, Careplus Med. Supply Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 25 Misc.3d 48 (N.Y. App. Term 2d Dept. 2009).

Based on the foregoing, this arbitrator finds that New Jersey law governs because of the significant contacts to New Jersey. The case is dismissed without prejudice.

DECISION: THE CLAIM IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AS NEW JERSEY LAW APPLIES.

AAA Case No. 17-17-1057-1830

Pamela Hirschhorn, arbitrator

Award date: 7/26/2018

New Jersey Policy + New Jersey Accident = No
New York PIP Arbitration

In the Matter of the Arbitration between: Spike Medical PC and New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co.

Edited by Lawrence N. Rogak

In this N.Y. PIP arbitration against a New Jersey insurer, the arbitrator holds that because the claim is against a New Jersey policy issued to a New Jersey resident and arises out of a New Jersey accident, New York arbitration is not the proper forum for this claim and it is dismissed.—LNR

The Assignor, NH, now a 34-year-old male, as a pedestrian, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in New Jersey on January 20, 2015. Following the accident, the Assignor sought medical attention for the injuries sustained in the accident. At issue in this case is a claim totaling $ 3,418.70, representing an office visit and EMG/NCV testing performed on the Assignor on March 31, 2015. 

Respondent maintains that this Forum lacks jurisdiction over the Respondent. The issue is whether this Arbitrator may hear this case.

Herein, Respondent submits the Insurance Policy [a New Jersey policy issued to a New Jersey resident], a New Jersey Application for Benefits and a New Jersey Police Report.  In addition, Respondent submits the Affidavit of Daniel A. Toadvine, an Assistant Vice President of Respondent, attesting to the New Jersey policy of insurance.

Respondent argues that it did not consent to arbitrate New Jersey No-Fault disputes within New York AAA. In addition, Respondent argues that New Jersey law is different from New York law in terms of coverage and liabilities and therefore, New Jersey has a stronger interest in this case and must apply.

Applicant proffers no evidence refuting Respondent’s assertions or documentary evidence.

I agree with Respondent. I find guidance in Careplus Medical Supply, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, 25 Misc.3d 48 890 N.Y.S.2d 258 (App. Term 9th and 10th Jud. Dists. 2009), where the Court determined that New Jersey law applied, holding that: “A conflict of law relating to an insurance policy must be resolved by applying the conflict of law rules relevant to contracts. The Court of Appeals has adopted a “center of gravity” or “grouping of contacts” approach which gives controlling effect to the law of the state that has “the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties.” In addition to the traditional determinative factor of the place of contracting, which should be given “heavy weight” in a grouping of contacts analysis the places of negotiation and performance, the location of the subject matter of the contract, and the domicile or place of business of the contracting parties are also to be considered.”

Further, in Flatlands Medical, P.C. v. AAA Ins., 43 Misc. 3d 49, 984 N.Y.S.2d 793 (App. Term 2d, 11th and 13th Jud. Dists. 2014)(out-of-state automobile insurer was not subject to personal jurisdiction, under Insurance Law, where it did not provide, write, or sell insurance in State of New York, did not transact business in New York, and did not have any offices or agents in New York).

Based on the foregoing, I dismiss this matter without prejudice so that Applicant is free, if it chooses, to file in the appropriate forum.

AAA Case No. 17-17-1070-6479

Award dated 08/07/2018

Giovanna Tuttolomondo, arbitrator