Rule 4:36-2(c) clarifies that any party who fails to file a Trial Information Statement (TIS) will assume that it has waived any argument regarding the pending discoveries, and the court will proceed and set the schedule for the arbitration. In this case, „no adjournment of the arbitration will be granted without exceptional circumstances.“ Among the best practices, forms have become the most important. The filing and service of a TIS is mandatory for any hope of postponing an arbitration date. There are scheduling issues associated with a deletion request. The request must be made before receipt of a notice of arbitration or within 15 days of receipt of a notice. Any subsequent application shall be procedurally rejected by the arbitral administrator. A party may file a formal request for referral. This application must be submitted to the presiding civil judge of the county or to his commissioner. Within 30 days of the end of the hearing, the arbitrator must submit a written award to the Registrar. The award shall be entered as a judgment of the De novo Court of Justice after the expiry of the time limit for appeal.
Either party may request de novo proceedings by submitting a written request to the Registrar within 30 days of the submission of the award and the completion of the notification. Another important area concerning UM and UIM arbitration concerns the Supreme Court`s decision in the Zirger case and the intervention of the UM/UIM institution in an ongoing liability action. The Zirger opinion did not contain many references to the procedures to be followed after the choice of intervention. On behalf of our clients, we have taken a very active/aggressive stance in the intervention. A case is currently pending before the Appeals Division and will be heard tomorrow regarding the bad faith of the responsible third party involved in the underlying process in which our client has chosen not to intervene. If you would like more information about the arbitration program, please read the Arbitration Guidelines, Appendix M of the Local Civil Code. In many of our counties, there are problems with adjournment requests. As in Essex County, some counties appoint certain judges to deal with all requests to adjourn arbitration dates. Each of these designated judges has its own approach among best practices. Some are more lenient than others. To the extent that the county has a strict enforcement policy regarding deferrals, the request for continuation should be the most formal and supported by strong documentation.
In accordance with the Rules, the parties must exchange a concise factual and legal statement 10 days before the date of arbitration. A copy of the documents exchanged is submitted to the arbitrator for review on the day of the hearing. The arbitrator may consider all relevant evidence, including evidence that would not be admissible under the Rules of Evidence. The adjudicator may accept witness and other affidavits, as well as hospital records and medical reports. Of course, this evidence must be exchanged between the parties. The adjudicator has a wide margin of appreciation with respect to all the evidence received at the hearing. It should be noted that no minutes are drawn up at the arbitration hearing and that the arbitrator`s conclusions are not conclusive de novo in subsequent proceedings. The court`s rules are quite specific with respect to the non-use of witness statements made at an arbitration hearing at a subsequent hearing. In the absence of a de novo award, either party may confirm the award and render a judgement within 50 days of the submission of the award. The decision contains interests prior to the decision under Rule 4:42-11. If neither de novo nor a consent order for a settlement or a request for confirmation of the arbitral award is made, the case will be administratively dismissed by the court.
It is therefore essential that the defendants involved in the arbitration before the Supreme Court dismiss the award and file de novo proceedings in a timely manner if the award is unacceptable or, if the award is acceptable, that a timely consent order be filed that reflects the settlement of the case in order to prevent the successful plaintiff`s right to interest. Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution („ADR“) before this tribunal. Arbitration is governed by Local Rule 201.1. The arbitration program has been revised to include a compliance judge for arbitration (currently Trial Judge Lois H. Goodman). The role of this bailiff is to administer the arbitration as a whole and to supervise the arbitrations. However, the management of each case remains in the hands of the district judge or designated district judge at all times. The arbitrator`s award cannot be challenged.
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, either party to the arbitration may, within 30 days of the award, submit a request for de novo proceedings to the Head of the Civil Division. The notice must also be served on all parties to the action. The opinion should take into account the fact that the award is rejected by that party and that de novo proceedings are sought. A fee of $200 must be included with the de novo process application. The award itself must be submitted by the adjudicator to the Head of the Civil Division within 10 days of the hearing. In most cases in the state of New Jersey, these sentences are submitted on the day of the hearing. The arbitrator shall provide a copy to each party, and the award shall contain notice of de novo proceedings and the consequences of such a request. As mentioned earlier, the question arises as to whether the liability carrier is making a good faith effort to settle the matter within the limits of the insurance before or during the process.
Currently, many auto liability insurers arbitrarily select billing numbers for cases that do not accurately reflect the value of the case and/or potential risk. The liability carrier feels reasonably comfortable in its position because it knows that a UIM carrier is available to pay any judgment and/or judgment that goes beyond the liability carrier`s policy. The courts have not looked at this issue so far, but there will certainly be laws on this in the next year. In the case we are currently hearing, the plaintiff`s case was arbitrated by the Supreme Court with an arbitral award registered below the third-party defendant`s insurance limits. Liability was not an issue in this case. The airline involved rejected the award and requested a de novo lawsuit. A „Zirger“ notice was sent to the airline UIM, and this airline carried out an analysis of the case and deemed the allocation appropriate and therefore chose not to intervene at the process level. .