CITIZENS UNITED RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE VS. GARDEN STATE Â ANESTHESIA, PA(L-2364-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5720-14T4

In 2009 William Gilmartin sought medical treatment after a motor-vehicle incident; providers (respondents) sought PIP benefits from insurer Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange (CURE), which denied coverage.
Respondents initiated PIP arbitration; the arbitrator entered awards in their favor (consolidated proceedings).
CURE filed in Superior Court to vacate the arbitration awards; the trial court affirmed six awards and vacated/remanded part of one award.
The trial court awarded respondents attorney’s fees under Rule 4:42-9(a)(6) and directed respondents to submit certifications of fees incurred for the appeal.
After submissions and CURE’s opposition, the trial court issued July 7, 2015 orders granting respondents additional attorney fees and costs in the full amounts requested, without explaining its reasoning or addressing RPC 1.5 factors.
CURE appealed only the supplemental July 7 fee awards, arguing the trial court failed to state findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 1:7-4(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s July 7, 2015 awards of additional attorney’s fees are reviewable on appeal	CURE: Fee awards are reviewable and the court erred by failing to provide findings and legal reasoning required by R.1:7-4(a)	Respondents: Appellate review of the fee awards is not proper; if reviewable, defer to trial court’s discretion	The appellate court held fee awards are reviewable and within its jurisdiction (citing supervisory rule authority)
Whether the trial court properly awarded additional fees without written/oral findings and without addressing RPC 1.5 factors	CURE: Trial court abused discretion by not stating findings of fact and conclusions of law and failing to analyze relevant factors for reasonableness	Respondents: If reviewable, the trial court’s awards should be affirmed for lack of abuse of discretion	The court reversed the July 7 awards and remanded for the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with R.1:7-4(a); no other portions of the orders were disturbed

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sabato, 380 N.J. Super. 463 (App. Div. 2005) (attorney's-fee awards following PIP arbitration fall under court rules and supervisory power)
Packard-Bamberger & Co., Inc. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427 (1997) (fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292 (1995) (standards for awarding counsel fees and appellate review)
Masone v. Levine, 382 N.J. Super. 181 (App. Div. 2005) (definition of abuse of discretion)
R.M. v. Supreme Court of N.J., 190 N.J. 1 (2007) (trial courts must analyze relevant factors and state reasons when awarding attorneys' fees)
Furst v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 182 N.J. 1 (2004) (requirement to state reasons for fee awards)
Strahan v. Strahan, 402 N.J. Super. 298 (App. Div. 2008) (meaningful appellate review requires trial court to state reasons for decisions)
Salch v. Salch, 240 N.J. Super. 441 (App. Div. 1990) (trial court must set forth reasons to permit appellate review)