SANG PARK VS. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (L-4045-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3341-19
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 29, 2021Background
- On January 11, 2018 Sang Park stopped at a red light and was rear-ended by Michelle Wragge; Park claimed significant injuries.
- Park was insured by Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) and filed a UM/UIM claim against GEICO on June 1, 2018.
- Default was entered against GEICO on December 14, 2018, later vacated by consent and the court on October 30, 2019.
- Park moved to amend her complaint to add Wragge and to extend discovery in November 2019; the amendment/extension were granted December 6, 2019.
- Park did not serve Wragge until February 15, 2020 (after the statute of limitations); GEICO moved to dismiss, arguing the amended tort claim did not relate back and GEICO’s subrogation rights were extinguished.
- The trial court granted GEICO summary judgment dismissing Park’s UM claim with prejudice for failure to protect GEICO’s subrogation rights; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaint adding tortfeasor Wragge relates back to the original UM complaint under Rule 4:9-3 (so filing was timely) | Park argued the amended complaint arose from the same occurrence and thus relates back, preserving the SOL | GEICO argued the amendment asserted a new cause of action against a new party after the SOL and did not meet relation-back requirements | Court held relation-back failed: Park pleaded a new cause of action and did not satisfy Viviano elements, so the claim against Wragge was time-barred |
| Whether Park’s failure to timely sue Wragge defeated GEICO’s subrogation rights and forfeited UM coverage | Park asserted relation back preserved the tort claim and thus GEICO’s subrogation rights | GEICO argued Park extinguished its subrogation rights by failing to timely commence suit that GEICO could assume; prejudice resulted | Court held GEICO’s subrogation rights were irretrievably lost, causing forfeiture of UM coverage; dismissal with prejudice affirmed |
| Standard of review for summary judgment dismissal | Park did not dispute standard; argued facts supported relation back | GEICO maintained no genuine issue of material fact and was entitled to judgment as a matter of law | Court applied de novo review and concluded summary judgment was appropriate in GEICO’s favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 224 N.J. 189 (2016) (standard for viewing record in favor of nonmoving party on appeal)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary judgment standard)
- Zirger v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co., 144 N.J. 327 (1996) (UM carrier right to subrogate and to intervene against tortfeasor)
- Viviano v. CBS, Inc., 101 N.J. 538 (1986) (relation-back Rule 4:9-3 requirements for adding new party after SOL)
- Green v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 144 N.J. 344 (1996) (insured’s obligation to keep UIM carrier informed; parallel handling of tort and UM claims)
- Ferrante v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Grp., 232 N.J. 460 (2018) (extent of carrier’s payment obligation when subrogation rights are nullified)