N.J. Stat. § 17:33A-2
Purpose of act
The purpose of this act is to confront aggressively the problem of insurance fraud in New Jersey by facilitating the detection of insurance fraud, eliminating the occurrence of such fraud through the development of fraud prevention programs, requiring the restitution of fraudulently obtained insurance benefits, and reducing the amount of premium dollars used to pay fraudulent claims.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Chiropractic Alliance of New Jersey v. Parisi
Chiropractic Alliance of New Jersey v. Parisi (1994)
“N.J.S.A. 17:33A-2. The Act established the DIFD (referred to in the Act as the “Division of Insurance Fraud Prevention”) to assist the Commissioner of Insurance in administratively investigating allegations of insurance fraud and in developing and implementing programs to…”
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Alesi (2011)
“” N.J.S.A. 17:33A-2. The IFPA must be construed “liberally to accomplish the Legislature’s broad remedial goals” of imposing civil penalties to “compensate the State for the costs incurred as a result of investigating and prosecuting insurance fraud.”
Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company v. Gregorio Lajara (2013)
“N.J.S.A. 17:33A-2. Restitution is an inherently equitable form of relief.”
Thomas v. New Jersey Insurance Underwriting Ass'n (1994)
“[N.J.S.A 17:33A-2.] This policy also argues against the risk that the majority rule permits insureds to practice deception with impunity.”
Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company v. Carteret Comprehensive Medical Care, Pc (2025)
“" N.J.S.A. 17:33A-2. In that regard, the Legislature declared: The purpose of this act is to confront aggressively the problem of insurance fraud in New Jersey by facilitating the detection of insurance fraud, eliminating the occurrence of such fraud through the development of…”
MARGIN HOLDINGS, LTD., LLC v. FRANKLIN MUTUAL, ETC. v. SAMUEL ORNSTEIN (L-0032-16, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (2022)
“]" N.J.S.A. 17:33A-2; see also Liberty Mut. Ins.”
Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company v. Gregorio Lajara (2013)
“N.J.S.A. 17:33A-2. Restitution is an inherently equitable form of relief.”
RICHARD J. BADOLATO, ETC. VS. CHARYSE MCMILLAN (DC-017383-16, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (2018)
“Although the IFPA created a statutory mandate to "confront aggressively the problem of insurance fraud in New Jersey," N.J.S.A. 17:33A-2, it does allow a no-admission settlement, N.”
AETNA HEALTH INC. VS. BIODIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY SERVICES, LLC (L-2994-14, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (2021)
“The IFPA "aggressively" combats insurance fraud, N.J.S.A. 17:33A-2, in part by authorizing insurers to pursue private claims for statutory violations, N.”
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. ELKHOLY, M.D. (2022)
“§ 17:33A-2). In doing so, the legislature crafted a separate insurance fraud statute that is easier to prove than common law fraud.”
OPEN MRI AND IMAGING OF RP VESTIBULAR DIAGNOSTICS, P.A. v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY (2022)
“The IFPA, enacted by the New Jersey Legislature to “confront aggressively the problem of insurance fraud,” N.J.S.A. 17:33A-2, prohibits the submission of insurance reimbursement claims when a party knows that the claim contains false or misleading information concerning any fact…”
PETRI v. DRIVE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY (2024)
“” N.J.S.A. 17:33A-2. The law makes it unlawful to provide: any written or oral statement, intended to be presented to any insurance company .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.