In New Jersey, fraudulent omission claims require the defendant to have a duty to disclose the omitted information. Citizens United Reciprocal Exch. v. Meer, 321 F.Supp.3d 479, 491 (D.N.J. 2018); Stockroom, Inc. v. Dydacomp Dev. Corp., 941 F.Supp.2d 537, 546 (D.N.J. 2013) (βSilence can be fraudulent under common law in circumstances where there is a duty to disclose.β).
See Allstate N.J. Ins. Co. v. Lajara, 117 A.3d 1221, 1232 (N.J. 2015) (ruling that, even in the context of IFPA claims involving PIP recovery disputes, the state constitutional right to a jury trial nevertheless applies); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Fiouris, 928 A.2d 154, 159 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 2007) (βIt is clear from this provision that the Legislature did not contemplate that a claim of a violation of the [IFPA] would be heard by an arbitrator.β); Citizens United Reciprocal Exch. v. Meer, 321 F.Supp.3d 479, 492 (D.N.J. 2018) (βThe NJIFPA is not preempted by PIP arbitration rules.β).
To bring a claim for common law fraud under New Jersey law, a party must show: β(1) a material misrepresentation of a presently existing or past fact; (2) knowledge or belief by the defendant of its falsity; (3) an intention that the other person rely on it; (4) reasonable reliance thereon by the other person; and (5) resulting damages.β Citizens United Reciprocal Exch. v. Meer, 321 F.Supp.3d 479, 489 (D.N.J. 2018) (quoting Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors, A.2d 350, 367 (N.J. 1997)); see also Verify Smart Corp. v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 17-4248, 2021 WL 2549335, at *12 (D.N.J. June 17, 2021). βTo satisfy this standard, the plaintiff must plead or allege the date, time and place of the alleged fraud or otherwise inject precision or some measure of substantiation into a fraud allegation.β
prohibits the submission of insurance reimbursement claims when a party knows that the claim contains false or misleading information concerning any fact or thing material to the claim, and prohibits concealment or knowing failure to disclose an event that affects the eligibility for reimbursement or the amount of the reimbursement. Citizens United Reciprocal Exch. v. Meer, 321 F.Supp.3d 479, 492-93 (D.N.J. 2018) (citing N.J.S.A. 17:33A-4); see also Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Elkholy, No. 21-16255, 2022 WL 2373917, at *2 (D.N.J. June 30, 2022).
No. CIV.A. 12-2491 JAP, 2012 WL 6761877, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 31, 2012); see also Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange v. Meer, 321 F.Supp.3d 479, 492 (D.N.J. 2018).
A party invoking equitable estoppel must show another party made a misrepresentation and the moving party relied on it to their detriment. See, e.g., United States v. Asmar, 827 F.2d 907, 912 (3d Cir. 1987); see also Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange v. Meer, 321 F.Supp.3d 479, 493 (D.N.J. 2018).
Further, in Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange v. Meer, the Court did not hold that claims for common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and unjust enrichment were not subject to statutory arbitration. 321 F.Supp.3d 479 (D.N.J. 2018).
I observed that courts have interpreted this provision to mean that βthe Legislature did not contemplate that a claim of a violation of the Insurance Fraud Prevention Act would be heard by an arbitrator.β See Op., 2022 WL 1486116 at *7 (quoting Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Fiouris, 395 N.J.Super. 156, 161 (App. Div. 2007)). See also Fed. Ins. Co. v. Windherburg-Cordeiro, No. 12-2491, 2012 WL 6761877, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 31, 2012); Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange v. Meer, 321 F.Supp.3d 479, 492 (D.N.J. 2018). Following those precedents, I held that GEICO's NJIFPA claims are not arbitrable, and must remain in court.
Motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) may be raised at any time, either by a party or sua sponte by the court. Citizens United Reciprocal Exch. v. Meer, 321 F.Supp.3d 479, 485 (D.N.J. 2018). β[B]ecause subject matter jurisdiction is non-waivable, courts have an independent obligation to satisfy themselves of jurisdiction if it is in doubt.β
Although New Jersey generally requires arbitration for no-fault insurance claims, New Jersey courts have repeatedly found that claims under the IFPA may be heard in state or federal courts. See Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Elkholy, No. 21-16255 (MAS) (DEA), 2022 WL 2373917, at *9-10 (D.N.J. June 30, 2022) (citing Allstate N.J. Ins. Co. v. Lajara, 222 N.J. 129, 117 A.3d 1221, 1232 (2015)) ("[C]ourts routinely uphold the IFPA's absolute mandate for judicial resolution notwithstanding contractual clauses that would otherwise require arbitration of IFPA claims."); see also Citizens United Reciprocal Exch. v. Meer, 321 F. Supp. 3d 479, 492 (D.N.J. 2018) ("The [IFPA] is not preempted by [no-fault] arbitration rules."). II. Factual Background