State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Comm'r

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the statute’s plain meaning required the insurer to reduce PIP benefits payable to its insured by the amount that the insured received under WC
• stating that “has recovered” generally refers to something obtained
• considering, in the interpretation of a statute, a section 118 [108 Op. Att’y heading that was “not merely a caption inserted by the codifier” but, rather, in the act passed by the General Assembly
• considering, in the interpretation of a statute, a section 118 [108 Op. Att’y heading that was “not merely a caption inserted by the codifier” but, rather, in the act passed by the General Assembly
• “The title of an act is relevant in ascertaining the legislative intent and purpose”
• reduction in PIP benefits was required where statute expressly mandated the reduction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).