(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for
the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please
note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).
(NOTE: The Court wrote no full opinion in this case. Rather, the Court's affirmance is based substantially on the written opinion of Judge Wecker of the Appellate Division.)
Argued March 1, 1999 -- Decided April 8, 1999
PER CURIAM
This appeal addresses the interaction between benefits provided under the Unsatisfied Claim and
Judgment Fund (UCJF), pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6-61 et seq., and under the Uninsured Employer's Fund
(UEF) pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-120.1 et seq., also known as Article 7A of the Workers' Compensation Act.
Herbert Bashir was a limousine driver for a company that failed to carry either workers'
compensation or automobile liability insurance. Bashir was driving the company's vehicle when it was
involved in a collision with a hit-and-run driver. Bashir filed for benefits under the UEF, which pays awards
against uninsured employers who fail to provide compensation to employees or their beneficiaries in
accordance with the provisions of the workers' compensation law. Under the 1988 amendment to Article 7A,
a UEF award is limited to medical expenses and temporary disability; pain and suffering and permanent
disability are no longer available.
Bashir also sought benefits from the UCJF and reached a tentative settlement in the amount of
$9000 but, thereafter, the UCJF declined payment based on N.J.S.A. 39:6-70(a) (Section 70(a)) because that
section provides for summary disposition of UCJF applications at a hearing where the applicant is required
to show, among other things, that he or she is not a person covered in respect of the injury or death by any
workers' compensation law.
Bashir filed suit to enforce the UCJF settlement. The Law Division held that, despite the very
limited scope of Title 7A UEF benefits, Bashir was a person covered by a workers' compensation law and
was, therefore, precluded from receiving benefits under the UCJF statute. The judge rejected Bashir's
argument that the reasoning of Licata v. Lutz should allow him to recover from the UCJF.
On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and remanded for entry of judgment enforcing the $9000
settlement between Bashir and the UCJF, reduced by the amount Bashir has recovered or will recover from
the UEF. The court noted that the legislative history of the both Fund statutes offers little guidance to their
intended interaction. Because the principles of statutory interpretation were not especially helpful in
deciding whether the "covered by" language of Section 70(a) applies to the UEF, the Appellate Division
relied on Licata, the only direct interpretation of that section. The Appellate Division concluded that, given
the limitations of the remedy afforded by the UEF, like Licata, Bashir is not a person "covered" by any
workers compensation law within the meaning of Section 70(a).
The Appellate Division noted that the purposes of the UCJF and UEF are similar: to protect
persons who suffer injury that should have been compensable but for the responsible party's failure to have
insurance coverage. According to the appellate panel, the nature of both statutes, when read together,
demonstrates that the Legislature did not intend that the limited UEF benefits deprive an employee of all
UCJF benefits.
The Appellate Division noted that, while it must construe the UCJF statute to avoid a depletion of
the Fund by unqualified claims, a construction that would deprive Bashir of any award from the UCJF would
be contrary to the remedial purposes of the legislation establishing each Fund. In addition, the Appellate
Division declined to follow the implied holding in Minardi v. Nocito that an injured employee whose
employer carried no workers' compensation insurance is not eligible for UCJF benefits.
Based on its reasoning, the Appellate Division held that the purposes of both Fund laws are best
served by a narrow reading of N.J.S.A. 39:6-70(a). Therefore, Bashir's Article 7A right to proceed against
the UEF does not exclude him from the protection of the UCJF as a person "covered by any workers'
compensation law." The court further held that if Bashir qualifies for benefits payable from the UEF under
Article 7A, he can still recover from the UCJF, but only to the extent the benefits he would otherwise
receive from the UCJF exceed the benefits he receives from the UEF.
The Supreme Court granted certification.
HELD: Judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion
below. Bashir's Article 7A right to proceed against the Uninsured Employer's Fund does not
exclude him from the protection of the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund as a person covered
by any workers' compensation law. If Bashir qualifies for benefits payable from the UEF under
Article 7A, he can still recover from the UCJF, to the extent the benefits he would otherwise receive
from the UCJF exceed the benefits he receives from the UEF.
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN
and COLEMAN join in this PER CURIAM opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
A-
22 September Term 1998
HERBERT BASHIR,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE, Designated Defendant in
a Hit & Run Case,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
JOHN DOE, said name being
fictitious, RICHARD ROE, said name
being fictitious, HARTFORD
INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation or
business organization, TWIN CITY
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a
corporation or business
organization, SONDHEIM & LOUGHLIN,
INC., a corporation or business
organization, SPERO MARGEOTES
DIAMOND COACH LIMO SERVICE, INC.,
a corporation or business
organization, ALPHA INSURANCE
COMPANY, said name being
fictitious, a corporation or
business organization,
Defendants.
Argued March 1, 1999 -- Decided April 8, 1999
On certification to the Superior Court,
Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported
at
313 N.J. Super. 1 (1998).
Michael F.J. Romano argued the cause for
appellant.
Timothy L. Madden argued the cause for
respondent (Freeman & Bass, attorneys).
PER CURIAM
The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons
expressed in Judge Wecker's opinion of the Appellate Division,
reported at
313 N.J. Super. 1 (1998).
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN,
GARIBALDI, STEIN, and COLEMAN join in this PER CURIAM opinion.
NO. A-22 SEPTEMBER TERM 1998
ON APPEAL FROM
ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court
HERBERT BASHIR,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE, Designated Defendant in a Hit &
Run Case,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
JOHN DOE, said name being fictitious,
RICHARD ROE, said name being fictitious,
HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, a
corporation or business organization, TWIN
CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a
corporation or business organization,
SONDHEIM & LOUGHLIN, INC., a corporation
or business organization, SPERO MARGEOTES
DIAMOND COACH LIMO SERVICE, INC., a
corporation or business organization, ALPHA
INSURANCE COMPANY, said name being
fictitious, a corporation or business organization,
Defendants.
DECIDED April 8, 1999
Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING
OPINION BY PER CURIAM
CONCURRING OPINION BY
DISSENTING OPINION BY