Why Insurance Carriers’ DPRPs Should Be Specific as to What Claims/actions Are and Are Not Arbitrable to Protect Themselves Against Motions to Dismiss.

Marshall Dennehey
Contact

GEICO filed a complaint against a series of medical providers asserting claims under the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA), violations of RICO, common law fraud and unjust enrichment. Some of the medical providers filed a motion to compel arbitration on all claims because the claims are subject to arbitration under both New Jersey No-Fault Law and GEICO’s Decision Point Review Plan (DPRP). The court found that because GEICO’s DPRP provided that any claims “arising out of” and “in connection with any claim for PIP benefits” were required to be heard via arbitration and because GEICO’s RICO, common law fraud and unjust enrichment claims arose out of the payment of PIP benefits, these claims were dismissed as arbitrable under GEICO’s DPRP’s arbitration clause. The court further found that, pursuant to current case law, IFPA claims are not arbitrable. While there have been recent cases that provided differing opinions on whether violations of RICO, common law fraud and unjust enrichment are arbitrable or not, insurance carriers’ DPRPs should be specific as to what claims/actions are and are not arbitrable to protect themselves against motions to dismiss.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Marshall Dennehey | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Marshall Dennehey
Contact
more
less

Marshall Dennehey on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide