N.J. Stat. » Title 39 — MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC REGULATION
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 39:6A-1 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This act may be cited and known as the "New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Karen K. Johnson v. Roselle Ez Quick, Llc(075044), 143 A.3d 254 (N.J. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Karen K. Johnson v. Roselle Ez Quick, Llc(075044), 143 A.3d 254 (N.J. 2016). · cites it 2× “After the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1 to -35 (No-Fault Act), was enacted in 1972, and based on judicial interpretations of an insurer’s subrogation rights, it became necessary to clarify and reaffirm an insurer’s right to reimbursement through…”
Thornton v. Allstate Ins., 391 N.W.2d 320 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 2× “That the automobile was the object of the robbery was merely an attending circumstance and did not transform this incident into "an accident involving an automobile" within the meaning of the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act (the no-fault law), N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1 et…”
Haines v. Taft, 204 A.3d 263 (N.J. 2019). “39:6A-12 and the legislative history of the No Fault Act, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1 to -35, but also advances an interpretation of the law at complete odds with public policy.”
Roig v. Kelsey, 641 A.2d 248 (N.J. 1994). “39:6A-12 of the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act, N.J.S.A 39:6A-1 to -35 (No-Fault Law), prohibits an injured party from recovering from a tortfeasor the medical-expense deductible and twenty-percent co-payment under a personal-injury-protection (PIP) policy.”
Employers Ass'n of New Jersey v. State of NJ, 601 F. Supp. 232 (D.N.J. 1985). · cites it 2× “In this action, the plaintiff, Employers Association of New Jersey, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating certain provisions of the New Jersey Automobile Insurance Freedom of Choice and Cost Containment Act of 1984, N.J.Stat.Ann. § 39:6A-1 et seq. as pre-empted by…”
New Jersey Coalition of Health Care Professionals, Inc. v. New Jersey Dep't of Banking & Ins., 732 A.2d 1063 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999). “PIP benefits under a standard automobile insurance policy pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1; 2. PIP benefits under a basic automobile insurance policy pursuant to N.”
Ross v. Transp. of New Jersey, 553 A.2d 12 (N.J. 1989). “§§ 39:6A-1 et seq. and 39:6B—1 et seq.” Statement of the Senate Law, Public Safety and Defense Committee, No.”
Ronson v. Talesnick, 33 F. Supp. 2d 347 (D.N.J. 1999). “The collateral source statute provides: In any civil action brought for personal injury or death, except actions brought pursuant to the provisions of [N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1 et seq.], if a plaintiff receives or is entitled to receive benefits for the injuries allegedly incurred from…”
Mattson v. Aetna Life Ins., 124 F. Supp. 3d 381 (D.N.J. 2015). “NJCSS does not pertain to this case-for a number of reasons: (1) the NJCSS does not apply to the Fund, which is not an insurance entity, but a publicly-funded “joint insurance fund”; (2) the regulations governing the Fund require that the Fund include a subrogation provision in…”
Joshua Haines Vs. Jacob W. Taft Tuwona Little Vs. Jayne Nishimura (l-4310-13 & L-0536-14, Camden Cnty. & Statewide)(Consol.), 162 A.3d 296 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “The Court concluded the Legislature intended the No-Fault Act, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1 to -35, enacted in 1972, to bar this "type of fault-based recovery.”
Matter of Kent, 190 B.R. 196 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1995). “1983 Reform Compulsory automobile insurance coverage in New Jersey began with the enactment in 1972 of the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1 to 6A-35, also known as the “No-Fault Act”.”
State Farm Guar. Ins. Co. v. Hereford Ins. Co., 183 A.3d 946 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). “For example, the New Jersey Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act (Insurance Act), N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1 to -35, governs arbitration of PIP benefit recovery claims, specifically.”
Show all 50 citing cases →
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.