CURE Auto Insurance: What You Need to Know

There are several cases involving CURE Auto Insurance currently pending in the Michigan Court of Appeals. No opinions have yet been issued.

However, in the state of New Jersey, where CURE is headquartered and where CURE has been writing auto insurance policies for years, there are several cases involving CURE that have been ruled on by the New Jersey Court of Appeals and the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Here are a few examples:

• Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange (CURE) v. Hackensack UMC – #A-3330-21 – Appellate Division – 2024 – CURE’s insured “sustained life-threatening injuries” in a car accident, necessitating emergency surgery and extensive treatment over 11 days of hospitalization. The total bill for his medical care was $204,963.75. CURE used the legal maneuver called “accord and satisfaction” to pay only $45,479.04 in personal injury protection (PIP) benefits of its insured’s medical costs. Read the full appellate opinion here.
• Hackensack Meridian Health v. Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange (CURE) – #A-1486-21 – Appellate Division – 2023 – CURE’s insured was “critically injured” in a car crash and spent 25 days in intensive care. The total bill for his medical care was $360,172.42. CURE tried unsuccessfully to use the legal maneuver known as “accord and satisfaction” to pay only $67,445.67 in PIP benefits of its insured’s medical costs. The trial court ruled that CURE could not use “accord and satisfaction” in this case. The Court of Appeals said CURE’s “use of accord and satisfaction in this case was a ploy to undermine the alternate dispute mechanisms available under PIP law.” Read the full appellate opinion here.
• Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange (CURE) v. AHS Hospital Corporation – #A-2723-18T2 – Appellate Division – 2019 – CURE’s insured was injured in an automobile crash that resulted in $20,000 worth of medical bills. CURE “paid less than $3,000” toward the medical costs. The case went to arbitration where the arbitrator ruled that CURE had to pay the “remaining balance.” Specifically, the “arbitrator disqualified CURE’s expert and rejected the expert’s findings because she determined the methodology used was unreliable and flawed . . . Ultimately, the arbitrator found [the medical] charges were usual, customary, and reasonable, and CURE Auto Insurance failed to provide competent evidence to contradict” the claim for the remaining balance. Read the full appellate opinion here.
• Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange (CURE) v. Northern NJ Ortho Specialists – #A-1669-15T3 – Appellate Division – 2017 – The doctors for CURE’s insured recommended and performed surgery on the insured “following an automobile accident.” CURE denied the claim under the insured’s PIP coverage “as not medically necessary” and refused to pay for the surgery. The case went to arbitration where the arbitrator “concluded” the evidence “rebutted CURE’s claim that the surgery was not medically necessary” and ordered CURE to cover the cost of the surgery. The trial judge “confirmed the arbitrator’s decision was grounded in substantial evidence found in the record.” Read the full appellate opinion here.
• Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange (CURE) v. Perez – #A-67-13 – Supreme Court – 2015 – After rescinding its insured’s automobile insurance policy because she made material misrepresentations in her insurance application, CURE Auto Insurnance sought to deny coverage under the policy for the liability claim filed by the person who was injured in a crash where CURE’s insured’s vehicle was at-fault. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that CURE had to pay on the innocent third-party’s liability claim: “[W]e find CURE liable for respondents’ third-party bodily injury claims.” The high court explained: “[W]e conclude that where an insured elects to add the basic policy’s optional $10,000 coverage for third-party bodily injury in their original contract [as the insured did in this case], the insurer shall be liable to innocent third parties for the contracted $10,000 amount as the minimal amount available under our compulsory system of automobile insurance coverage, even when that basic policy is later voided.” Read the full Supreme Court opinion here.
• Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange (CURE) v. Martinelli – # A-4810-16T3 – Appellate Division – 2018 – After CURE’s insured’s vehicle was involved in a crash that injured a third-party, CURE tried to deny coverage, contending that “post-loss misrepresentations” by its insured during CURE’s investigation of the accident violated the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act. The trial judge concluded that the alleged material misrepresentations by CURE’s insured were “not relevant and germane to the insurer’s investigation into the accident” and that they were “of no consequence to the investigation.” Subsequently, after a bench trial, the court ordered CURE Auto Insurance to provide coverage to the third-party who was injured in the crash involving CURE’s insured’s vehicle. The Court of Appeals said “[w]e see no reason to disturb the judge’s findings, which are supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence in the record. We conclude that CURE’s contention that [its insured] violated the FPA is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion. . . . We note briefly, as did the judge, that [CURE’s insured] made no knowingly false or misleading material statements to CURE. On this record, we see no basis to conclude a FPA violation occurred.” Read the full appellate opinion here.
• Ledrich v. Kier and Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange (CURE) – #A-2722-21 – Appellate Division – 2022 – After a car crash victim suffered catastrophic injuries that ultimately took her life, CURE sought to avoid paying out $800,000 for her “extensive hospital, hospice and funeral expenses” by denying the victim’s brother’s PIP claim based on CURE’s contention that the victim was a “nonresident relative” of her brother and, thus, she was not covered by his CURE auto insurance policy. The trial judge ruled that the victim was a “household” member under her brother’s CURE policy and that CURE was “‘responsible to pay out PIP benefits due to the catastrophic injuries sustained by’ the victim in the subject accident.” The Court of Appeals agreed, noting that “CURE’s contentions . . . lack merit.” The court also stated: “We reject CURE’s argument” that it “should not be required to pay PIP benefits on behalf” of the victim. Read the full appellate opinion here.