12-20-07 A-1470-06T1
In this action, plaintiff filed a UIM claim against his
insurance carrier. At issue was whether his injuries were
proximately caused by the motor vehicle accident. An issue at
trial was whether evidence of the insurance carrier's prior
payment of PIP benefits on behalf of plaintiff was admissible in
the UIM trial on the issue of proximate cause. We concluded
that it was not admissible for two primary reasons. First,
although a UIM claim is a first-party claim by an insured
against his insurance carrier based on breach of contract, the
proofs necessary to sustain that claim are the same proofs that
an insured must establish against the tortfeasor. Thus, whether
the carrier paid PIP benefits on behalf of the insured is not
relevant. Second, we concluded that to permit evidence that an
insurance carrier previously paid PIP benefits would complicate
the insurance carrier's decision to pay those benefits, thereby
interfering with the public policy encouraging prompt payment of
an injured party's medical expenses.
