On July 17, 2019 the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in L.R. v. Camden City Public School District, affirming the Appellate Division’s determination that a “student record” under New Jersey law retains protected status and may not be rendered a public record through redaction of personally identifiable information. This ruling effectively prevents a third party from obtaining student records without demonstrating to a Superior Court Judge that the requestor is a “bona fide researcher” or otherwise has a compelling need for the records that outweighs the privacy interests of the students. It also shields school boards from awards of attorney fees under OPRA (the Open Public Records Act) to parties who succeed in their efforts to obtain student records.  Read the full Case Alert here.

The Court found that although the injured plaintiff was insured in Florida, he was uninsured at the time of the accident for purposes of New Jersey insurance coverage. The plaintiff had lived in New Jersey for five years and garaged his vehicle in New Jersey yet his vehicle title, registration and insurance were procured in Florida and included a fictitious Florida address.  Read the full Case Alert here.

The Court clarified the options available to a party aggrieved by an erroneous arbitration ruling. A party need not choose between an internal administrative appeal and an appeal to the Superior Court. Rather, a party may pursue an internal appeal and, if dissatisfied with that result, appeal to the Superior Court within 45 days of the internal appeal decision.  Read the full Case Alert here.

The proposed bill would erode New Jersey’s system of “no fault” auto insurance by allowing plaintiffs who selected PIP limits below $250,000 to recover form Tortfeasors any medical bills exceeding their chosen PIP limits.  Read the full Case Alert here.

The bill, christened by the plaintiffs’ attorney who sponsored it as the “New Jersey Insurance Fair Conduct Act,” would permit a claimant to file a civil action against an insurer for 1) unreasonable delay or unreasonable denial of a claim for payment of benefits under an insurance policy; or 2) any act or omission in violation of the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, regardless of whether such act or omission demonstrates a general business practice prohibited by the UCSPA. Upon establishing a violation of the “Insurance Fair Conduct Act,” the plaintiff would be entitled to not only actual damages, but also treble damages, attorney fees and costs.  Read the full Case Alert here.