The Future of Future Medical Expenses in New Jersey Motor Vehicle Cases

On May 6, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously resolved the future personal injury protection (PIP) issue. In Murray v. Punina, 264 N.J. 1, 355 A.3d 242 (2026), the Court addressed whether a plaintiff in a personal injury motor vehicle case can present evidence of future medical expenses where the PIP policy has not been exhausted. This issue has plagued the courts since N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 was amended in 2019.

In Murray v. Punina, plaintiff Murray was a passenger if a vehicle driven by defendant Punina that was involved in an accident with a vehicle driven by defendant Marrone. Punina’s vehicle was uninsured. Murray had no automobile insurance and lived in a household that had no such coverage. Plaintiff sought PIP benefits through New Jersey’s Property Liability Insurance Guaranty Association (NJPLIGA) under the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund. (UCFJ). This fund permitted claims up to $250,000 in medical expenses, which was not exhausted by the time of the trial in this matter.

Defendant Marrone motioned for the future medical expenses to be precluded at trial pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 because they were collectible under New Jersey law. The trial court refused. The jury found defendant Punina 80% responsible and Marrone 20% responsible for the accident and awarded $250,000 in non-economic damages and $100,000 in future medical expenses. Upon review, the Appellate Division partially overturned the trial court and found that the future medical expenses were collectible and vacated that portion from the verdict. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Plaintiff initially argued that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 did not apply to PIP benefits paid by the UCFJ arguing that the UCFJ is not expressly mentioned in that statute. The Supreme Court examined the plain language of the UCFJ and No Fault Act. It found that the use of the term personal injury protection is a general term. The legislative history of the UCJF statute and the No Fault Act supported that the position that legislature intended for “PIP” to have the same meaning in both statutes. It concluded that to hold otherwise would result in different remedies for those covered by UCFJ PIP benefits and those covered by No Fault PIP benefits.

In its analysis of whether the future medical expenses were admissible under PIP statutes, the Court explained the history of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, part of the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act, more commonly known as the No Fault Act. Under this law, medical expenses that were paid or collectible under the PIP policies [standard, basic and special] were not admissible at trial. The objective of this law was to avoid a double recovery of benefits. In 2019, in two successive acts, the New Jersey legislature amended the law to permit a plaintiff to admit medical expenses that exceeded or were unpaid or uncovered by any injured party’s medical expense personal protection limits, regardless of any health care coverage. The later amendment further provided that such medical expenses were subject to the PIP fee schedule.

The Supreme Court, examining N.J.S.A 39:6A-12, noted that the phrase “collectible or paid” although undefined by the statute is understood to mean those which are “legally due” for payment as PIP benefits. It further noted that the term “uncompensated” meant “to not be compensated,” and exceeds meant “to go beyond a limit set.” Hence, under the plain language of the statute, medical expenses that were unpaid may still be collectible. The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that future medical expenses are unpaid and therefore not collectible, holding that this argument “runs afoul of the No Fault Act…” It particularly noted that projected future medical expenses yet to be incurred are still collectible and therefore remain eligible for payment. Indeed, it found that if future expenses were categorized as “unpaid” plaintiffs could enhance their personal injury damages awards by deferring treatment until after trial. This would defeat the purpose of the statute of limiting a double recovery. Accordingly, the Court held that future medical expenses benefits covered by a PIP policy are “collectible” and thus inadmissible in a civil action.