PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Pantano & Rossi Chiropractic Center, P.A. (PRCC), as subrogee of Maria Ramirez, appeals from an April 16, 2010 Law Division Order that vacated a Personal Injury Protection (PIP) arbitration award in favor of PRCC, and remanded the matter to the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) for further proceedings. We agree with PRCC's assertion that the judge erred when he rejected the arbitrator's conclusion that a $250,000 PIP policy limit applied. We reverse, and remand for the entry of an order reinstating the arbitration award.
On September 21, 2007, Maria Ramirez was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sustained various injuries. Approximately four days later, she came under the care of Drs. Raymond J. Lasko, D.C. and Victor Rossi, D.C. at PRCC. After an MRI, PRCC commenced chiropractic treatment and submitted invoices to Ramirez's automobile liability insurance carrier, defendant 21st Century Insurance Group, which, by virtue of
On October 2, 2008, PRCC filed a demand for arbitration with the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) seeking an arbitration award of $725 plus attorney's fees. Other than a procedural question that has no bearing on the issues on appeal, only one issue was presented during the arbitration proceeding: whether Ramirez's PIP policy limit was $15,000 or $250,000. Defendant argued before the dispute resolution professional (DRP or arbitrator) that because Ramirez had selected a reduced benefit level of $15,000, her PIP benefits were exhausted because the $15,000 maximum had already been reached.
The evidence presented to the DRP at the arbitration hearing, and in a post-hearing document submission, established that Ramirez had not signed a Coverage Selection Form at any time prior to the accident. PRCC therefore maintained that in light of the provisions of
In contrast, defendant argued that because Ramirez had requested the reduced PIP benefit level by telephone prior to the September 21, 2007 automobile accident, and had never rescinded that request, the $15,000 reduced PIP benefit level became operative. In a post-hearing submission, defendant produced a coverage selection form signed by a member of Ramirez's household on October 13, 2007, at the time Ramirez's policy with defendant was renewed. The October 13, 2007 renewal form shows a $15,000 PIP benefit level as the coverage selected.
In a January 13, 2010 written decision, the arbitrator noted defendant had conceded that it "did not have an actual written signed Coverage Selection Form for the policy at issue as the insured did not return a signed Coverage Selection Form." The arbitrator found that the "alleged telephone call" was not sufficient to bind the PIP coverage at the $15,000 level because, in keeping with the provisions of
Having found that the $250,000 maximum PIP benefit applied, the arbitrator awarded PRCC $396.50,
Pursuant to
In particular, the judge found that one of the statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award had been satisfied, namely,
Having concluded "there was an agreement to a $15,000 policy" and an "electronic signature" confirming that choice, the judge determined that the arbitrator "committed a prejudicial error" when he found otherwise. The judge therefore vacated the arbitration award. In his April 16, 2010 order, the judge not only vacated the award, but also added an additional provision, namely, he remanded the matter to NAF "for further proceedings consistent with this court's ruling that as a matter of law a reduced $15,000" PIP policy limit applied.
On appeal, PRCC argues: 1) defendant was procedurally barred from seeking to vacate the arbitration award as its request was untimely; 2) the judge erred in entertaining defendant's request to vacate the award as defendant had not exhausted its administrative remedies; 3) the trial court's interpretation of the law was incorrect because an insured is deemed to have selected the $250,000 PIP benefit level unless he or she requests otherwise in writing, and Ramirez had not done so; and 4) the administrative regulation on which the court relied should not have been interpreted to permit an insured to select a reduced PIP benefit level by telephone.
Amicus curiae NAF also urges us to reverse the order under review, although on more limited grounds. NAF argues that the court lacked the authority to remand the matter to the NAF for continued arbitration proceedings because a court's authority is limited to modifying, correcting or vacating an arbitration award; and the order of remand "by its nature, operates to [impermissibly] interject the court" into the arbitration process.
PIP arbitration proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the New Jersey Alternative Procedure for Dispute Resolution Act (APDRA),
In point one, PRCC argues that because defendant's request to vacate the arbitration award was untimely, the judge committed reversible error by entertaining it.
Further, subsection (f) authorizes a court to vacate or modify an arbitration award if the arbitrator incorrectly applied the law:
A party seeking to vacate, modify or correct an arbitration award is required to commence a summary action in the Superior Court "within 45 days after the award is delivered to the applicant . . . . The award of the umpire shall become final unless the action [to vacate, modify or correct the award] is commenced as required by this subsection."
In light of the provisions of that statute, we agree with plaintiff's contention that because defendant sought to vacate the arbitration award, defendant was required by the provisions of
Defendant should not have been permitted by the judge to, in effect, cure its own untimely filing by deeming its reply brief the legal equivalent of the filing of a summary action to vacate the award under
In light of that determination, we need not reach the additional arguments advanced by PRCC or the argument advanced by NAF that the judge lacked the authority to require the arbitrator to conduct further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded for the entry of an order reinstating the arbitration award.