At issue is a pending bill that would change a standard for lawsuits by drivers who have personal auto injury coverage under the state's no-fault system.

New Jersey motorists who opt for no-fault coverage, rather than a policy that gives them an unfettered right to sue, are currently prevented from bringing suit for pain and suffering unless the injury is both serious and permanent.

Under the language of the bill, (A-3531 and S. 2533), the requirement that the injury has "a serious impact to the life of the claimant" would be removed.

The bill will "open the floodgates to minor injury litigation," said Bernard Flynn, vice president and general counsel for New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance, speaking for Save Choices for New Jersey Drivers, a group recently formed by insurers to oppose the measure.

Mr. Flynn said the main effort would involve a communication effort with insurers writing to policyholders. The new group, he said, has Princeton, N.J.-based lobbying concern, Princeton Public Affairs, working for it as well as Winning Strategies of Newark, N.J., a public relations concern.

Both firms were employed by the Insurers Coalition for Auto Insurance Competition, which spent $3.5 million to push for the omnibus auto insurance reform bill that was passed in June.

Save Choices outlay will be "far from that type of effort" Mr. Flynn said without giving a number.

He said the bill would earn personal injury lawyers "millions in legal fees" and the resulting affect on policies would mean a $600 increase for a two-car family.

Brian D. Drazin, the president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America New Jersey said the bill addresses the concerns of consumers who have no way of knowing when they choose insurance what the opinion of a judge might be in deciding, for example, whether "the inability to bathe or diaper your child is a significant impact."

Mr. Drazin said changing the law would remove a subjective standard that is already a target for legal attack and there would be the "same amount of lawsuits as are being filed now."

What insurers are actually arguing, according to Mr. Drazin, is that "some of the cases being filed now would no longer be dismissed."

Mr. Drazin would make no predictions on the outcome of the battle, but referring to the insurers' expenditure for lobbying and public relations he said, "I'm glad they think it's necessary to spend all that money. They must feel we're right?.I'm glad they have that money to spend on it. It must mean they are making a lot of money in New Jersey."

But according to Mr. Flynn, the bill would create a cost "crisis in the state."

Richard Stokes, North Eastern regional manager and legislative counsel for the Alliance of American Insurers said that unlike the insurers' recent effort on behalf of reform legislation, which his organization did not join, "the whole industry is unified" in opposition to the trial lawyers' bill.

The measure cleared the Assembly Banking and Insurance Committee in June, but requires a vote by the full Assembly as well as passage by the full Senate. If the bill fails to pass before the current legislature expires in mid-January, Mr. Flynn said the hope is that it "will not be reintroduced."