New Jersey Statutes
N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-97 (2026)
Deduction of duplicate benefits
✓ current as of May 2026
In any civil action brought for personal injury or death, except actions brought pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1972, c. 70 (C. 39:6A-1 et seq.), if a plaintiff receives or is entitled to receive benefits for the injuries allegedly incurred from any other source other than a joint tortfeasor, the benefits, other than workers' compensation benefits or the proceeds from a life insurance policy, shall be disclosed to the court and the amount thereof which duplicates any benefit contained in the award shall be deducted from any award recovered by the plaintiff, less any premium paid to an insurer directly by the plaintiff or by any member of the plaintiff's family on behalf of the plaintiff for the policy period during which the benefits are payable. Any party to the action shall be permitted to introduce evidence regarding any of the matters described in this act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Jean Levine, on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated v. United Healthcare Corp. (Dc Nj 01-Cv-04964), 402 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2005).
Jean Levine, on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated v. United Healthcare Corp. (Dc Nj 01-Cv-04964), 402 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2005). “1292 (b): 10 (1) whether the antisubrogation rule contained in N.J.S.A. 2A:15-97, as interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Perreira v.”
Carducci v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 247 F. Supp. 2d 596 (D.N.J. 2003). “(a) Whether N.J.S.A. 2A:15-97 “relates to” plaintiffs’ employee benefit plans .”
Danowski by Danowski v. United States, 924 F. Supp. 661 (D.N.J. 1996). “Moreover, according to the Government, even if the claim is not barred by the FTCA, the New Jersey Collateral Source Rule, as embodied in N.J.StatAnn. § 2A:15-97, operates to foreclose the recovery of any medical expenses already paid by the Plan on Ryan’s behalf.”
Taransky v. Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 760 F.3d 307 (3d Cir. 2014). “This appeal involves, inter alia, the interaction of the MSP Act with a state law, the New Jersey Collateral Source Statute (NJCSS), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:15-97. Under the NJCSS, a tort plaintiff cannot recover damages from a defendant when she has already received funding from a…”
Mattson v. Aetna Life Ins., 124 F. Supp. 3d 381 (D.N.J. 2015). “Statutory Schemes Plaintiffs allege that two New Jersey statutes prohibited Defendants from seeking subrogation for Eric’s medical expenses—N.J.S.A. 2A:15-97 (the New Jersey Collateral Source Statute) and N.”
Roche v. Aetna, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 700 (D.N.J. 2016). “) Plaintiffs complain on behalf of themselves and a putative class of persons similarly situated that the recovery actions taken by Defendants violate New Jersey’s anti-sub-rogation laws — codified at N.J.S.A. 2A:15-97 and N.J.A.C. 11:4-42.10 — as well as the New Jersey Consumer…”
Levine v. United Healthcare Corp., 285 F. Supp. 2d 552 (D.N.J. 2003). “Rediger held that New Jersey’s collateral source statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-97, 4 includes an antisubrogation rule which prevents health insurers who have expended funds on behalf of their insureds from recouping the funds through a subrogation or reimbursement hens in the event…”
Ronson v. Talesnick, 33 F. Supp. 2d 347 (D.N.J. 1999). “See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:15-97 (West 1997). The collateral source statute permits the court to deduct any duplicative award from a plaintiffs recovery.”
Swanson v. Brewster, 784 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. 2010). “N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:15-97 (West 2010) (defining collateral sources as "benefits for the injuries allegedly incurred from any other source other than a joint tortfeasor"); Or.”
Kelly Greene v. Aig Cas. Co., 77 A.3d 515 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2013). “(continued) 12 A-6278-11T4 collateral source rule, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-97. Under our collateral source rule, petitioner would have been obliged to disclose to the court any amounts she received from her health insurer and they would have been deducted from any tort judgment.”
Rachel Kranz v. Steven Schuss, M.D., 146 A.3d 647 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016). “10 A-4918-13T1 Defendants argue the collateral source rule, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-97, and general notions of public policy support the judge's decision.”
West v. Health Net of the Ne., 217 F.R.D. 163 (D.N.J. 2003). “In each case, the plaintiff was insured under an employee benefit health plan which paid health benefits for plaintiff’s personal injuries, but which included a subrogation and reimbursement provision allowing the plan to recoup the benefits should the plaintiff recover from a…”
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.