May 6, 2026
On May 6, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its ruling in Murray v. Punina, 2026 WL 1236235, holding that a plaintiff suing a defendant for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident cannot introduce evidence of future medical expenses which do not exceed the plaintiff’s available PIP policy limits at the time of trial.
Plaintiff Lakita Murray alleged that she sustained injuries in a car accident tin August 2016 as a passenger in a vehicle which was uninsured. She was granted PIP benefits with a limit of $250,000 from the New Jersey Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Association (NJPLIGA). Plaintiff did not exceed the limits of her PIP coverage prior to trial. Plaintiff’s medical expert testified at deposition that Plaintiff’s future medical expenses would be between $42,000 and $160,000. It was undisputed that the projected future medical expenses would not have exhausted the PIP benefits available to plaintiff. The trial court allowed plaintiff’s medical expert’s testimony regarding alleged future medical expenses to be admitted at trial and the Appellate Division reversed.
The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s holding. It found that New Jersey law prohibits admitting evidence of amounts collectible or paid under an applicable insurance policy and found that this includes those amounts which are legally due for payment as PIP benefits. Therefore, the Court ruled that future medical expense benefits that are covered under a PIP policy are “collectible” and thus inadmissible in a civil action.
This ruling is important for counsel defending motor vehicle accident claims. In cases where a plaintiff has a large PIP policy and minimal treatment, defense counsel can argue that an opinion by a plaintiff’s medical expert or life care planner regarding future treatment is inadmissible where PIP has not been exhausted. The Court did not expressly answer the question of whether alleged future medical expenses which would exceed the PIP policy limits would be admissible, even if the PIP limits are not exhausted at the time of trial, or if they are admissible, how to separate the inadmissible alleged future expenses which would covered under PIP from the inadmissible alleged future expenses.
Defense counsel can still argue that future medicals should not be admitted while there are still benefits available under PIP and that the amount of the future expenses which would actually be covered under the PIP policy cannot easily be determined until the Court clarifies this issue.