Nesby v. Fleurmond, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2019). In her opinion for the Appellate Division today, Judge Rose concisely summarized the issue in this appeal. “Distilled to its essence, the issue presented in this appeal is whether plaintiff can somehow seek PIP [personal injury protection] coverage for his unpaid medical expenses under policies issued by GEICO and AAA and MAIC to the tortfeasor’s resident relatives, covering vehicles that were not involved in the accident– after plaintiff settled any and all claims arising from the accident with the tortfeasor.” After applying de novo review of the legal issues presented, the panel affirmed the Law Division’s grant of a declaratory judgment in favor of the defense.
The case arose out of an auto accident in which plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff’s car was hit from behind by a vehicle owned by defendant DeCaro, but driven by defendant Fleurmond. DeCaro’s vehicle was insured for $25,000 by Progressive Garden State Insurance Company (“Progressive”). Fleurmond owned no vehicle and had no auto insurance. But she lived with her sister and mother, who had policies issued, respectively, by GEICO and AAA MAIC. Neither of those insured vehicles was involved in the accident that resulted in plaintiff’s injury.
Plaintiff claimed medical costs of over $400,000 from the accident. After exhausting his $15,000 PIP benefits, and getting his own health insurer to pay the rest, plaintiff tendered a claim to Progressive. Progressive offered the full $25,000 policy limit. In consideration of that payment, plaintiff signed a release from “any and all claims” in favor of DeCaro and Fleurmond.
Plaintiff then sued DeCaro and Fleurmond, seeking damages for his injuries. Among other relief, he sought to “compel insurance coverage” for those injuries, though his pleading did not name GEICO or AAA MAIC as defendants. Plaintiff and the carriers each moved for a declaratory judgment as to whether there was coverage under the policies, which (again) were issued not to Fleurmond but to her mother and sister.
The Law Division granted the carriers’ motion and denied that of plaintiff. That court concluded that plaintiff had settled his claims against DeCaro and Fleurmond, and that he had no relationship with the carriers that would entitle him to call upon their policies.
The Appellate Division affirmed. Judge Rose agreed with the Law Division that “plaintiff was not an insured under the GEICO or AAA MAIC policies, did not live with either insured and was not driving a vehicle insured under either policy. ” Thus, he was not entitled to benefits under either of those policies.
Judge Rose also rebuffed plaintiff’s claim that New Jersey permits “stacking of policies” for PIP benefits. She quoted N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.2, which states that “[n]o person shall recover personal injury protection benefits under more than one automobile insurance policy for injuries sustained in any one accident. The panel distinguished two cases cited by plaintiff, one of which said that “[t]he No-Fault Law prohibits the stacking of PIP benefits.”
Judge Rose then held that even if plaintiff could have called on the GEICO and/or AAA MAIC policies, his release of “any and all claims” barred him from doing so. “Where a release’s language refers to ‘any and all claims,’ courts do not generally permit exceptions.” Thus, because plaintiff had no right to invoke the insurance policies, and he had released any claim that he might have had, the Appellate Division affirmed the declaratory judgment against him.