Uninsured Employer's Fund
Sroczynski v. John Milek
197 N.J. 36 (2008)
Decided December 17, 2008
The NJ Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division in holding that there is no legally effective policy cancellation where a carrier fails to prove that it strictly complied with all of the requirements for cancelling a workers’ compensation insurance policy. The NJ Legislature established clear and unambiguous requirements in the cancellation statute, which include the requirement that a carrier file with the Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau the certified statement required in N.J.S.A. 34:15-81(b). However, the Court also held that only parties that have raised this particular filing issue can be granted relief from improper cancellations - past cancellations that were never challenged on this ground will stand because the policyholders waived their right to challenge them.
NJ Superior Court – Appellate Division
Jorge Calderon v. Erfren Jimenez and Elberth Mora
356 N.J. Super. 513 (App. Div. 2003)
Decided January 14, 2003
The Appellate Division upheld the determination of the judge of compensation that an insurance carrier was responsible for benefits where it did not properly cancel an insurance policy by certified mail. Even though the employer was an assigned risk and the premium was not paid, the court still considered the policy in effect.
Macysyn v. Joseph Hensler, Jr. and Lawrenceville Harware
329 N.J. Super. 476 (App. Div. 2000)
Decided March 30, 2000
The Appellate Division affirmed that part of the workers' compensation judge's decision that held the workers' compensation court could determine civil liability for benefits of an officer of an uninsured corporate employer. However, the appellate court reversed personal liability in the case since the individual as corporate secretary was not active in the business to warrant imposition of such liability.