A decision today by New Jersey's State Supreme Court to removerestrictions on pain and suffering claims stemming from autoaccidents could unravel reforms the state's legislature put inplace two years ago, insurance representatives said.

In a ruling filed today, the high court found that the state'sAutomobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act, which restricts bodilyinjury suits, does not limit the plaintiff's suit to having aserious impact on their life.

The 6-0 opinion, written by Justice Barry T. Albin Jr., said thelegislature did not write a serious life impact standard into thelegislation, and therefore a suit filed by Christina DiProspero forinjuries she received from an accident in 1999 could goforward.

In the case, Christina DiProspero v. Barbara J. Penn, Ms.DiProspero claimed she suffered back and neck pain that her doctorcertified as permanent. The trial judge ruled that the suit couldnot go forward because she did not suffer an injury that had aserious impact on her life. An Appellate Division Court concurredin the decision, setting up today's ruling.

The American Insurance Association, the Property CasualtyInsurers Association of America (PCI), and New Jersey ManufacturersInsurance Company of West Trenton were critical of the ruling. Theysaid the decision would unravel the progress made on auto reform inNew Jersey, and would mean consumers would eventually pay more fortheir auto insurance.

"The court's ruling flies in the face of clear legislativeintent and effectively nullifies the choices New Jersey driversmade to achieve lower rates," said David Snyder, AIA vice presidentand assistant general counsel.

"Until today, New Jersey drivers benefited from a balancedno-fault system--consumers enjoyed a substantial premium reductionby agreeing not to file 'pain and suffering' suits over minorinjuries," said Anthony G. Dickson, president and CEO of NJMInsurance Co. "Now, lawsuits over minor injuries will flood thesystem, with these costs ultimately being borne by ourpolicyholders."

"[The] decision will indisputably limit consumers' choices andwill open the door to thousands of minor lawsuits flooding thesystem," said Richard Stokes, regional vice president for PCI."This decision essentially puts the brakes on positive autoinsurance reform in this state which is harmful to all New Jerseydrivers."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto said itwould be up to the legislature to fix the language to limitthreshold.

Justice Jaynee LaVecchia did not participate in thedecision.

Until passage of the auto reform act, many carriers refused todo business in the state or were seeking to leave. After itspassage, GEICO and a number of insurers re-entered the state, whileState Farm and American International Group changed their mindabout leaving the auto market.