delivered the opinion of the Court.
In
Pinto v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co.,
183
N.J.
405, 407,
Two years later, a new statute was enacted that prohibits, in motor vehicle liability policies issued to corporate or business entities, the use of step-down provisions to provide less UM/UIM coverage for employees than that which is provided to the “named insureds” on the policy; and further, if the policy lists only the business entity as the “named insured” then employees are “deemed” eligible for maximum available coverage. L. 2007, c. 163, codified at N.J.S.A. 17:28 — 1.1(f). The new legislation, which was signed into law on September 10, 2007, specified that it was effective immediately. L. 2007, c. 163, § 2.
This appeal involves the application of the new legislation to a policy that was in effect at the time that the legislation became effective. The policy contained a step-down provision that but for the new legislation would govern the limits of UM/CJIM coverage for the injured employee involved in this matter. Specifically, we are called on to address whether the step-down provision is enforceable for a UIM claim by the employee concerning an accident that occurred prior to the adoption of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f). Thus, we must consider the retroactivity of the statute.
The law favors prospective application of a new statute. To conclude otherwise requires a finding that one of the recognized exceptions to that rule applies. We conclude that there is no evidence that the Legislature explicitly or implicitly directed
Applying established rules of statutory construction and the retroactivity of new legislation, we hold that N.J.S.A 17:28 — 1.1(f) does not retroactively apply to an accident that preceded the new legislation’s effective date.
I.
A.
On July 5, 2007, plaintiff Nowell James was injured in an automobile accident while driving a vehicle owned by his employer, Metric Plumbing and Heating, Inc. (Metric). James’s car was struck by another vehicle, operated by Ria T. Demeo and owned by Jon J. Demeo. James suffered serious injuries as a result of the collision. He subsequently settled with the Demeos for $100,000, the policy limit of their insurance. This appeal focuses on his UIM claim under his employer’s commercial motor vehicle liability policy.
James was operating a vehicle that Metric insured under a policy issued by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (Defendant or NJM). The NJM policy was issued on March 18, 2007, and included a $500,000 limit for uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) coverage. Because the $100,000 received from the Demeos was insufficient to defray the costs of James’s injuries, James sought UIM coverage at the $500,000 limit as an “insured” person under Metric’s policy with NJM. However, as was the case in Pinto, the policy issued by NJM contained a step-down provision limiting the recovery of UIM benefits for certain categories of insureds. For individuals who were not “named insureds” on the policy, which James was not, eligibility for UIM benefits was capped at the limit contained in the insured’s own personal policy, or a policy by which the insured was covered as a family member. The specific policy language states as follows:
Limit of Insurance
1. Regardless of the number of covered autos, insureds, premiums paid, claims made or vehicles involved in the accident, the LIMIT OP INSURANCE shown in the Declarations Supplement I for [UM/UIM] Coverage is the most we will pay for all damages resulting from any one accident with an uninsured motor vehicle or an underinsured motor vehicle.
a. However, subject to our maximum Limit of Insurance for this coverage, if:
(1) An insured is not the individual named insured under this policy;
(2) That insured is an individual named insured under one or more other policies providing similar coverage; and
(3) All such other policies have a limit of insurance for similar coverage which is less than the Limit of Insurance for this coverage; then the most we will pay for alldamages resulting from any one accident with [a UM/CJIM] motor vehicle shall not exceed the highest applicable limit of insurance under any coverage form or policy providing coverage to that insured as an individual named insured.
b. However, subject to our maximum Limit of Insurance for this coverage, if:
(1) An insured is not the individual named insured under this policy or any other policy;
(2) That insured is insured as a family member under one or more other policies providing similar coverage; and
(3) All such other policies have a limit of insurance for similar coverage which is less than the Limit of Insurance for this coverage;
then the most we will pay for all damages resulting from any one accident with [a UMAJIM] motor vehicle shall not exceed the highest applicable limit of insurance under any coverage form or policy providing coverage to that insured as a family member.
James was insured under his wife’s personal automobile policy, which had a UIM limit of $50,000. Thus, under Metric’s NJM policy, with its applicable step-down provision, James’s maximum UIM recovery under the NJM policy was capped at $50,000. Accordingly, NJM denied James’s UIM claim because James already had received an amount in excess of $50,000 from his settlement with the Demeos.
B.
On July 9, 2009, James filed this action against NJM seeking UIM benefits under the NJM motor vehicle liability policy issued to his employer to compensate him for injuries sustained in the July 5, 2007, accident. In support of his claim, James primarily relied upon N.J.S.A. 17:28 — 1.1(f), which provides in pertinent part as follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this section or any other law to the contrary, a motor vehicle liability policy or renewal of such policy of insurance, ... issued in this State to a corporate or business entity ..., shall not provide less uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage for an individual employed by the corporate or business entity than the coverage provided to the named insured under the policy. A policy that names a corporate or business entity as a named insured shall be deemed to provide the maximum uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage available under the policy to an individual employed by the corporate or business entity, regardless of whether the individual is an additional named insured under that policy or is a named insured or is covered under any other policy providing uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage.
[N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f)]
N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f) was enacted into law, and made immediately effective, on September 10, 2007 — five months after NJM issued its policy to Metric, and two months after the motor vehicle accident for which James seeks UIM compensation. Thus, James’s claim is premised on the amendment to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 that was adopted during the effective period of NJM’s policy with Metric, but after the accident injuring James.
NJM filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that
N.J.S.A.
17:28-1.1(f) does not apply retroactively to the facts of James’s claim and that the policy’s step-down provision was applicable to the claim. In response, James argued that the Legislature intended to reform all motor vehicle
The trial court determined that the step-down provision included in Metric’s policy was implicated on these facts because: (1) James was covered as an insured under his wife’s policy, which contained a UIM coverage limit of $50,000; and (2) James had received in excess of that amount from his settlement with the Demeos. Accordingly, under the terms of the NJM step-down provision, NJM was required to pay “no more” than the $50,000 coverage limit contained in James’s wife’s policy.
Rejecting James’s claim that N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f) retroactively barred application to employees of step-down provisions in em ployer motor vehicle liability policies in existence at the time of the law’s enactment, the court granted summary judgment to NJM. The court explained that because the step-down provision was valid at the time the policy was issued by NJM to Metric, it would be unfair to increase NJM’s potential liability by retroactively reforming the policy in light of the subsequent passage of N.J.S.A. 17:28 — 1.1(f). The court explained that NJM permissibly “relied on the law which permitted step down provisions” when negotiating its motor vehicle liability policy with Metric and that James “d[id] not have the same reasonable expectations” because N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f) was not adopted until after Metric had already entered into its insurance contract with NJM.
James appealed and the Appellate Division reversed in an unpublished opinion. The panel reviewed two prior Appellate Division decisions that had considered the retroactive effect to be given to
N.J.S.A.
17:28-1.1(f):
Olkusz v. Brown,
401
N.J.Super.
496,
We granted NJM’s petition for certification to consider whether the amendatory legislation applies retroactively to an accident that preceded the effective date of the legislation and, if so, whether reforming a motor vehicle liability policy in such a setting would be manifestly unjust.
II.
A.
As previously stated, this Court’s decision in
Pinto, supra,
issued on June 6, 2005, upheld the validity of and enforced a step-down provision in respect of UM/UIM benefits provided to an employee of a corporate entity through the employer’s motor vehicle liability policy. 183
N.J.
at 407-10,
A little more than two years after Pinto was decided, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1666, which the Governor signed into law on September 10, 2007, as chapter 163 of the Laws of 2007. The new legislation amended N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 to include the following additional subsection:
f. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section or any other law to the contrary, a motor vehicle liability policy or renewal of such policy of insurance, insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death, sustained by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, issued in this State to a corporate or business entity with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State, shall not provide less uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage for an individual employed by the corporate or business entity than the coverage provided to the named insured under the policy. A policy that names a corporate or business entity as a named insured shall be deemed to provide the maximum uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage available under the policy to an individual employed by the corporate or business entity, regardless of whether the individual is an additional named insured under that policy or is a named insured or is covered under any other policy providing uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage.
The Statement accompanying S-1666 described the purpose of the legislation.
This bill prohibits the use of step-down provisions in motor vehicle liability policies issued to corporate or business entities to lower uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage for employees to the limits of coverage available to the employees under their personal policies.
This bill is in response to the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in [Pinto ]. In Pinto, the court held that as to a motor vehicle liability policy that names a corporate or business entity as a named insured, step-down provisions which limit uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage for employees of that entity that are not individuals named on the policy are valid and enforceable. Thus, the court’s ruling, which upholds earlier case law on the subject, allows an employee’s coverage under an employer’s business motor vehicle insurance policy to be limited to the lower limits of uninsured or under insured motorist coverage contained in the employee’s individual motor vehicle liability policy, even in situations in which the employee is injured in a covered vehicle in a work-related accident, if the employer’s policy so provides.
This bill reverses the effect of the Pinto decision by prohibiting step-down provisions in these policies. Further, the bill expressly provides that a policy that names a corporate or business entity as a named insured shall be deemed to provide the maximum uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage available under the policy to any individual employed by the corporate or business entity, regardless of whether the individual is an additional named insured under that policy, or is a named insured or is covered under any other policy providing uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage.
In respect of the new law’s effective date, S-1666 provided that “[t]his act shall take effect immediately.” See L. 2007, c. 163, § 2.
The question presented here is whether the amendment to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 was intended to apply to an accident that preceded its effective date, but which occurred during the life of a policy that was in force at the time of the statute’s enactment. Our analysis is informed by rules of statutory construction that govern the retroactive application of legislation.
B.
It is well established that “statutes generally should be given prospective application.”
In re D.C.,
146
N.J.
31, 50,
There is a two-part test for determining “ ‘whether a statute could be applied retroactively.’”
D.C., supra,
146
N.J.
at 50,
The first part questions whether the Legislature intended to give the statute retroactive application. The second part involves whether retroactive application of that statute will result in either an unconstitutional interference with vested rights or a manifest injustice.
[Ibid. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).]
Consistent application of that test results in three circumstances that will justify giving a statute retroactive effect: (1) when the Legislature expresses its intent that the law apply retroactively, either expressly or implicitly; (2) when an amendment is curative; or (3) when the expectations of the parties so warrant.
See Cruz, supra,
195
N.J.
at 46,
The Legislature may demonstrate its intent to apply a statute retroactively either by stating so “in the language of the statute or in the pertinent legislative history ... or [such intent may be] implied.”
A statutory provision also may be afforded retroactive application if it is “curative,” that is, designed to “remedy a perceived imperfection in or misapplication of a statute.”
Schiavo v. John F. Kennedy Hosp.,
258
N.J.Super.
380, 386,
Finally, we have acknowledged that, absent a clearly expressed intent by the Legislature to have a statute apply only prospectively, “such considerations as the expectations of the parties may warrant retroactive application of a statute.”
Gibbons, supra,
86
N.J.
at 523,
Once it has been determined that a statute is subject to retroactive application, a separate inquiry requires examination for manifest injustice to the party adversely affected by retroactive application of the changed law.
See ibid.
Thus, notwithstanding a readily gleaned legislative intent to retroactively apply new legislation, or the determination that a statute is clearly curative, the impact on the affected party must be considered.
See D.C., supra,
146
N.J.
at 58,
III.
In analyzing the retroactivity question before us, we first must examine the change in law that the new statute directs. The plain language of
N.J.S.A.
17:28-1.1®, enacted in response to the
Pinto
holding, is our starting point in discerning and implementing the legislative intent underlying this new statute, including the issue of retroactive effect.
See Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Intermodal Props., LLC,
215
N.J.
142, 166,
Notwithstanding the provisions of this section or any other law to the contrary, a motor vehicle liability policy or renewal of such policy of insurance, insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death, sustained by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, issued in this State to a corporate or business entity with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State, shall not provide less uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage for an individual employed by the corporate or business entity than the coverage provided to the named insured under the policy.
[N.J.S.A. 17:28 — 1.1(f) (emphasis added).]
That straightforward language prohibits providing an employee with less coverage than the named insured on a corporate or business entity’s commercial automobile liability policy. The plain language of the second sentence of the amendment further directs what should happen if the corporate or business entity’s commercial automobile liability policy has not identified any named insured — other than the business entity itself — which was the same situation as existed in Pinto. That second sentence of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1© states as follows:
A policy that names a corporate or business entity as a named insured shall be deemed to provide the maximum uninsured or under insured motorist coverage available under the policy to an individual employed by the corporate or business entity, regardless of whether the individual is an additional named insured under that policy or is a named insured or is covered under any other policy providing uninsured or under insured motorist coverage.
Giving that plain and direct language its normal meaning, it is apparent that neither of the two operative sentences comprising this legislative provision prohibits step-down provisions in commercial motor vehicle liability policies for uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage.
Stated simply, step-down provisions are not ultra vires as a result of the statute’s plain language. The Court’s role in undertaking statutory interpretation is to give “words their ordinary meaning and significance.”
Perez v. Professionally Green, LLC,
215
N.J.
388, 399,
The precise way in which the operative language of
N.J.S.A.
17:28 — 1.1(10 is worded demonstrates that the amendment does not render step-down provisions ultra vires in other settings in which an “insured” under a motor vehicle liability policy issued to a corporate or business entity might remain subject to a step-down limit
That said, although the Legislature did not proscribe the use of step-down provisions in corporate or business motor vehicle liability policies, the language of the two operative sentences clearly altered how policies containing such provisions would be permitted to operate in respect of employees. Again, we follow the well-recognized principle that a statute’s language must be given its
ordinary meaning.
N.E.R.I. Corp. v. N.J. Highway Auth.,
147
N.J.
223, 236,
The language of the statute is also explicit in identifying the effective date of the amendment. Pursuant to section 2 of the bill that, when enacted, became
N.J.S.A.
17:28-1.1(f), the amendment was to take effect immediately.
See L.
2007, c. 163, § 2. Because the bill was signed into law on September 10, 2007, the new law took effect immediately on September 10, 2007. As the
Olkusz
panel aptly noted, had the Legislature intended an earlier date for the law to take effect, that intention could have been made plain in the very section directing when the law would become effective.
Olkusz, supra,
401
N.J.Super.
at 502,
That does not mean that the Legislature did not explicitly intend for
N.J.S.A.
17:28 — 1.1(f) to impact policies in existence on the amendment’s effective date. To the contrary,
To the extent that such an interpretation interferes with policies negotiated before the amendment’s passage but in existence on September 10, 2007, we find explicit legislative intent that the legislation should have that impact. Insurers cannot cry foul for the legislative determination to implement a mid-policy alteration for accidents occurring after the effective date for, as we recently stated, “[i]n a highly regulated industry, such as insurance, businesses have no ‘contractual expectation’ that a naturally fluid regulatory scheme, ‘subject to change at any time,’ will remain in an unalterably fixed state.”
Farmers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. N.J. Prop. Liab. Ins. Guar. Ass’n,
215
N.J.
522, 547,
IV.
In the facts of this appeal, we are asked whether Metric’s policy with NJM, in existence when the new law came into effect, should be regarded as changed prior to the date of the amendment’s enactment so as to include the date on which James’s accident occurred. To reach such a conclusion, there must be an implicit intent by the Legislature for such retroactive application of the new law’s textual directives or some other exception to the rule of prospective application of a new law because no explicit direction for retroactive application was forthcoming from the legislation or its history. We turn first to an examination for any implicit intent to have the law applied as James argues.
A.
James and the panel below relied for support on the analysis in
Hand, swpra,
in which the Appellate Division concluded that the language of
N.J.S.A.
17:28 — 1.1(f) evinced an implicit legislative intent to retroactively reform all commercial liability policies containing a step-down provision in existence on the effective date of the new legislation and to provide an immediate remedy for all who had a claim pending as of that date. 408
N.J.Super.
at 141,
First, as noted, a plain language construction of the operative terms of the new legislation reveals that it does not proscribe step-down provisions. It simply thwarts implementation of such provisions for a certain class of insureds who otherwise might be subject to them, namely employees of a corporate or business entity whose policy contains such a provision. The legislation does not prevent a step-down provision from operating for other persons subject to its terms. Thus, when the amendment became effective it immediately began blocking the provision’s application to employees and altered or filled in contract terms to provide a remedy. In other words, on its effective date N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f) reformed the contract by operation of law. The timing of the reformation of the contract is critical.
Like many motor vehicle insurance policies, the policy in this case was an “occurrence policy,” whose benefits are triggered on the date of the occurrence, generally the accident.
See Zuckerman v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co.,
100
N.J.
304, 312,
As stated previously, N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f) amended policies when the law took effect, immediately reforming existing policies of insurance prospectively from that date in accordance with its precise and direct terms as to how commercial motor vehicle liability policies must treat employees under any step-down provision impacting UM/UIM coverage. Thus, an accident to an employee occurring after the effective date of the amendment but before the expiration of the policy period would be treated differ ently by operation of law than would be an accident that preceded that law’s effective date.
Our construction gives plain and direct meaning to the straightforward language of the new law.
See DiProspero, supra,
183
N.J.
at 492,
In sum, we see no explicit or implicit legislative intent to apply the law in the “retroactive” way in which James seeks. While the amendment applies to the corporate policy issued by NJM to Metric, it amends the policy as of the date the amendment took effect, September 10, 2007, and not before.
B.
We perceive no other basis of support for the retroactive application sought by James.
The curative exception to the general rule favoring the prospective application of statutes is not applicable here.
N.J.S.A.
17:28-1.1(f) did not cure a judicial misinterpretation of the law.
See 2nd Roc-Jersey Assocs., supra,
158
N.J.
at 605,
There also is no basis for concluding that the expectations of the parties justify retroactive application of
N.J.S.A.
17:28-1.1(f). The insurance policy was issued on March 18, 2007, and the accident occurred on July 5, 2007. At neither point was
N.J.S.A.
17:28-1.1(f) adopted or effective. The controlling law held that this type of step-down clause was enforceable.
See Pinto, supra,
183
N.J.
at 412,
The expectation of retroactive application should be strongly apparent to the parties in order to override the lack of any explicit or implicit expression of intent for retroactive application. No case for such expectation has been made out here. To the extent that James points to the existence of a pending bill in the Legislature at the time of his accident, the argument fails to establish an expectation that is recognizable as requiring a retroactive application of the new law to his case. The possibility that a bill might become law is an expectation built on uncertainty until it happens. Moreover, the bill that James points to never indicated in its language or its accompanying statements that it would provide retroactive relief. Therefore, we do not find that the “expectations of the parties” exception to the general rule favoring the prospective application of new legislation is present here.
We thus conclude that the amendment is not curative and that the expectations of
C.
To summarize, with respect to the question of retroactivity of new legislation that is before us,
N.J.S.A.
17:28 — 1.1(f) by its very language had an immediately reformative effect on commercial motor vehicle liability policies in existence on the date of its enactment, like the one whose policy life included the date of James’s accident. The new law reformed policies when it became effective; however, an employee’s claim made on a motor vehicle liability policy must be judged based on the law governing the policy at the time of the occurrence: the accident. Thus, employee UM/UIM claims involving accidents that occurred on or after the effective date of
N.J.S.A.
17:28 — 1.1(f) are governed by that new law.
Cf. Sexton v. Boyz Farms, Inc.,
We hold that, when it became effective, the new law applied to and prospectively reformed, for employees, a corporation’s or business entity’s motor vehicle liability policy containing UM/UIM step-down provisions, including policies that were in force as of the law’s effective date, September 10, 2007. Our holding enforces the effective date plainly directed by the Legislature and all operative language of the new provision. The holding also incorporates our conclusion that none of the exceptions to the general rule favoring prospective application of new legislation pertain to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f).
James’s UM7UIM claim is governed by the provisions of the NJM policy that were lawfully in existence as of the date of his accident, which preceded the effective date of the new law. We therefore conclude that the Appellate Division erred in retroactively applying N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(1) to James’s claim and reversing the trial court’s award of summary judgment to NJM on that basis. 1
Y.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed.
Judge RODRÍGUEZ (temporarily assigned) did not participate.
For reversal — Chief Justice RABNER and Justices LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON and Judge CUFF (t/a) — 5.
Opposed — None.
Notes
This matter is before the Court on NJM's petition for certification. We therefore reject James’s contention before this Court that, despite the non-applicability of
N.J.S.A.
17:28-1.1(f), summary judgment was not appropriate because, he claims, there was an issue of material fact as to whether James was a “named insured" under Metric’s policy. We note that it was undisputed that the only “named insured” in the policy was Metric and that James was an "insured" under the policy. Although James argues that there is a genuine dispute over whether he should be regarded as the equivalent of a named insured, that argument was rejected in
Pinto, supra,
which addressed essentially identical policy language and concluded that a policy is unambiguous where it names the corporate entity as the only "named insured” and includes employees as "insureds.” 183
N.J.
at 417,