For those
of us that handle injury
cases, the TRAVCO
decision was a long time coming. Basically, New Hampshire has a no
fault coverage on any automobile insurance policy issued in the state. This no
fault coverage is called “Medical Payments” coverage, and is regulated by RSA 264:16.
As Plaintiff’s attorneys, we long took the position that using the medical
payments coverage to pay the health insurance lien was not a “double recovery”
within the statute and should be allowed. Insurers refused to honor this, and
steadfastly refused to pay any health insurance lien. The Medical Payment
Statute forbid a person from recovering from both health insurance and
auto insurance for a medical bill related to the accident. However, if the
person injured pursue a third party claim against the person that hit them,
then that can trigger a “subrogation” right (i.e. a right of reimbursement) by
the health insurer for proceeds from the third party injury case. Thus, the argument that there is no double
recovery, and that medical payment coverage can be used to pay a health insurer’s
lien if any medical payment benefits remained.
The
TRAVCO case found that in such situations, the Plaintiff has not had a “double
recovery” and mandated that the auto insurer pay off the health insurance lien
up to the applicable medical payments limits. This is important, as in the
past, this was not being allowed by insurers. Now, the New Hampshire Supreme
Court has ruled the Plaintiffs were correct, and finally the statute can be
used to help protect those it was intended to protect when first drafted.
A
special thanks to the New Hampshire Association for Justice (an organization Parnell, Michels & McKay has been a
proud member of for many years) for their tireless work in helping get the New
Hampshire Supreme Court to find in the Plaintiff’s favor.
If you
find yourself injured
due to no fault of your own, please contact us and let us put this
new law to work on your behalf.
No comments:
Post a Comment