Allstate Nj v. Neurology Pain
13 A.3d 390
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Tubelis, insured by Allstate, sustained injuries in a car accident and treated by Neurology Pain Associates, which Neurology later claimed for PIP benefits under Allstate's policy.
- Tubelis assigned her PIP claim to Neurology, leading to a dispute that Neurology brought to the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) for arbitration.
- NAF appointed an arbitrator who ruled for Allstate; Neurology sought an internal appeal to a DRP panel under NAF rules with strict filing deadlines.
- Allstate timely filed a response; Neurology filed a reply on August 16, 2009; Allstate objected to the August 18, 2009 faxed reply as untimely.
- NAF case coordinator ruled Neurology's August 16 reply timely and Allstate's August 18 objection untimely; Allstate challenged this in Chancery Court, seeking to preclude the submission.
- The trial court granted some relief to Allstate, denied NAF's intervention, then later allowed neurology’s reply to be considered by the DRP panel under an order that evolved through further reconsideration, culminating in a February 9, 2010 order that was appealed by NAF.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether APDRA rules authorize review of intermediate NAF rulings | Allstate: intermediate rulings are not reviewable under APDRA. | NAF: rules provide avenues for judicial review of APDRA proceedings. | Intermediate rulings not subject to APDRA review; abstained from extending review. |
| Whether NAF has standing to intervene in Allstate v Neurology | Allstate asserts no standing for NAF to be involved; seeks to protect control of proceedings. | NAF has substantial interest in the integrity and efficient administration of PIP arbitrations. | NAF has standing to intervene as of right. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying NAF's intervention | Allstate contends intervention would disrupt ongoing administration of PIP arbitrations. | NAF demonstrates a cognizable interest and inadequacy of representation by Neurology. | Trial court erred in denying intervention. |
| Whether the APDRA framework permits judicial review of NAF timeliness decisions | Allstate seeks review of timeliness under APDRA. | NAF rules apply without such review for timeliness. | No, APDRA does not provide review for timeliness determinations in this context. |
| Whether the APDRA framework precludes appellate review of the challenged orders | Allstate argues appellate review is barred by APDRA. | NAF argues the designated rule structure allows review. | Court does not grant broad appellate relief under APDRA for these interlocutory orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mt. Hope Dev. Assocs. v. Mt. Hope Waterpower Project, 154 N.J. 141 (1998) (public policy against piecemeal review; no automatic expansion of review in APDRA context)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garden State Surgical Ctr., L.L.C., 413 N.J. Super. 513 (App.Div. 2010) (preclusion principles in review of interlocutory actions)
- Caudle v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 230 F.3d 920 (7th Cir. 2000) (arbitrators have no interest in outcome; not typically joined)
- New England Cleaning Servs., Inc. v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 199 F.3d 542 (1st Cir. 1999) (arbitration context; concerns about joinder)
- Austern v. Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc., 898 F.2d 882 (2d Cir. 1990) (intermediate rulings and arbitration-related review)
- N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Bergen Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., 410 N.J. Super. 270 (App.Div. 2009) (APDRA context and No-Fault arbitration framework)
- Brundage v. Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575 (2008) (general policy against piecemeal review; arbitration considerations)
- Gonzalez v. N.J. Prop. Liab. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 412 N.J. Super. 406 (App.Div. 2010) (concepts of party interest in arbitration-related actions)