This is the second post that catches up with appellate developments last week and this week. The Supreme Court issued rulings in three cases during that period. Two of those appeals involved unanimous opinions. The third engendered a relatively rare 5-2 split among the Justices. Here are summaries:
Mist Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Berkley Ins. Co., ___ N.J. ___ (2026). This was the 5-2 case. It produced 103 pages of opinions, divided roughly evenly between Justice Patterson’s majority opinion and Justice Fasciale’s dissent, in which Justice Hoffman joined. The issue was whether the defendant insurer was barred from relying on an exclusion contained in its policy of insurance, on either of two theories that the plaintiff insured presented. The case came to the Court from rulings below on cross-motions for summary judgment. The majority held that the exclusion was enforceable, affirming while modifying the Appellate Division’s opinion, which in turn had reversed the Law Division’s grant of summary judgment to the insured. The dissenters believed that the insurer’s conduct estopped it from relying on the exclusion.
Murray v. Punina, ___ N.J. ___ (2026). Justice Fasciale wrote the unanimous opinion in this appeal. The issue, as he phrased it, was “whether evidence of plaintiff’s future medical expenses is admissible in her personal injury trial when those projected expenses would not exceed her personal injury protection (PIP) coverage limits.” His short answer was this: “Under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12, a provision of the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act, commonly known as the No-Fault Act, a plaintiff suing a defendant for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident cannot introduce evidence of benefits that are ‘collectible’ under PIP coverage. We hold that future medical expense benefits that do not exceed a claimant’s PIP coverage limits are ‘collectible’ and therefore inadmissible during a plaintiff’s personal injury trial against a tortfeasor.” The Court thus affirmed the Appellate Division, which had reversed the Law Division’s denial of defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict on this issue.
State v. DiNapoli, ___ N.J. ___ (2026). This was a vehicular homicide case. N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3 defines that crime. The issue addressed in Justice Noriega’s unanimous opinion involved the causation element of vehicular homicide and whether expert testimony on that issue (1) was relevant and admissible, and (2) required a hearing under New Jersey Evidence Rule 104. The Law Division had denied the State’s pretrial motion to bar three defense experts who intended to address the causation element, deferring the issue until trial. The Appellate Division vacated that ruling and remanded for a Rule 104 hearing. Agreeing with the Law Division, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the expert testimony was relevant and that no Rule 104 hearing was required.
