January 21, 2022

The New Jersey Insurance Fair Conduct Act Means Big Changes for NJ Auto Insurers

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content.
Register Now

Key Takeaways

  • On January 18, 2022, Governor Phil Murphy signed into law the New Jersey Insurance Fair Conduct Act (the “Act”).

On January 18, 2022, Governor Phil Murphy signed into law the New Jersey Insurance Fair Conduct Act (the "Act"). The Act takes effect immediately and represents a significant change in the law governing the conduct of automobile insurers in New Jersey.   

The Act establishes a private cause of action for claimants who are injured in a motor vehicle accident and who are entitled to uninsured ("UM") or underinsured motorist ("UIM") coverage. Under the Act, a claimant may file a lawsuit against an insurer for: "1) an unreasonable delay or unreasonable denial of a claim for coverage or for payment of benefits; or 2) any violation of the provisions of section 4" of a separate statute, the New Jersey Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (N.J.S.A. 17:29B-4), which governs unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices. 

Case law in New Jersey had previously held that there was no private right of action for violations of the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, but the Act now creates a private right of action for such violations. The Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act sets forth various prohibited practices, such as failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications concerning claims, failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims, failing to pay claims without a reasonable investigation, and attempting to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable person would have believed based on advertising material accompanying the application. 

The new Act further notes that "the claimant shall not be required to prove that the insurer's actions were of such a frequency as to indicate a general business practice."  If the plaintiff establishes that the insurer violated provisions of this Act, plaintiff is entitled to: "1) actual damages caused by the violation of this act which shall include, but need not be limited to, actual trial verdicts that shall not exceed three times the applicable coverage amount; and 2) pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees, and reasonable litigation expenses." In addition, the Act prohibits rate increases as a result of compliance with the Act, but allows the Commissioner of the Department of Banking and Insurance to make certain rate adjustments, and forbids the dissemination of inaccurate or misleading information about the Act to policyholders or consumers.   

Notably, the Act is limited to claimants who are entitled to UM/UIM coverage under automobile insurance policies. The Act leaves many questions unanswered, which we anticipate will be the subject of future litigation. For example: 

  • The Act does not define what constitutes an "unreasonable delay" in paying benefits or what constitutes "unreasonable denial" of a claim and whether this standard is the same as New Jersey's existing standard for first-party bad faith as established in Pickett v. Lloyd's, 131 N.J. 457 (1993), which New Jersey courts subsequently applied to UM/UIM claims; 
  • The Act does not specify whether the law will be applied to claims made prior to the Act's effective date;
  • The Act does not specify whether the cap on damages is restricted to three times the UIM coverage limits as stated in the policy, or the net limit accounting for any credit the UIM carrier is entitled to receive for the tortfeasor(s) liability coverage; and 
  • The Act does not specify the plaintiff's burden of proof. 

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Riker Danzig LLP

SEC May Require Advisers and Funds to Draft Cybersecurity Policies and Disclose Incidents

By Michael P. O'Mullan Riker Danzig LLP February 11 , 2022

Following the rise of cybercrime and on the coattails of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) promulgating final rules concerning cybersecurity requirements for the financial services sector, we knew that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was not far behind.

New York Insurance Disclosure Act May Cause Significant Changes In New York State Court Lawsuits

By Brian E. O’Donnell Riker Danzig LLP February 10 , 2022

On December 31, 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (the “Act”)

FINRA to Prioritize Cryptocurrency, Options Account Paperwork, and Expungement Reform in 2022

By Michael P. O'Mullan Riker Danzig LLP January 24 , 2022

During a January 19, 2021, webinar with the SIFMA Compliance & Legal Society, FINRA president and CEO Robert Cook discussed with participants FINRA’s priorities for 2022.

More From Insurance Law

Insurance Protection Gaps: Searching for Solutions

By Thomas M. Dawson McDermott Will & Emery February 10 , 2023

Given the vast number of proposals to close “the protection gap” offered by regulators, reinsurers, insurers, brokers and other industry participants in recent years, it is a wonder that it persists.

"Control" of Insurers: A Concept That Remains a Work in Progress

By Andrea T. Best McDermott Will & Emery February 06 , 2023

The concept of “control” of insurers received significant attention from state insurance regulators last year and will receive even more in 2023.

5 Trends to Watch in 2023: Florida Property Insurance

By Fred E. Karlinsky Greenberg Traurig January 03 , 2023

State-run Insurer Could See Fewer Policies, But No Rate Relief Likely for Homeowners

Featured Stories