Thisopinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the ANNETT RUFFIN and DENNIS RUFFIN v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY and NEW JERSEY PROPERTY-LIABILITY INSURANCE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.


                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-1046-16T2


ANNETT RUFFIN and DENNIS RUFFIN,

        Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY and NEW JERSEY
PROPERTY-LIABILITY INSURANCE GUARANTY
ASSOCIATION (NJPLIGA),

        Defendants-Respondents,

and

DELROY CLARKE, NEW JERSEY INDEMNITY
INSURANCE COMPANY, DHIANA DIAZ,
NJM INSURANCE GROUP, and NEW JERSEY
MANUFACTURERS COMPANY,

        Defendants.



              Argued November 28, 2017 - Decided December 15, 2017

              Before Judges Carroll, Leone and Mawla.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-
              3574-15.

              Eldridge   Hawkins  argued   the  cause   for
              appellants (Eldridge Hawkins, LLC, attorneys;
              Eldridge Hawkins and Cecile D. Portilla, on
              the briefs).
            Mark M. Tallmadge argued the cause for
            respondent NJPLIGA (Bressler, Amery & Ross,
            PC, attorneys; Mark M. Tallmadge and Michael
            J. Morris, on the brief).

            Eleanor Heck, Deputy Attorney General, argued
            the cause for respondent State of New Jersey
            (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
            attorney; Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant
            Attorney General, of counsel; Eleanor Heck,
            on the brief).

PER CURIAM

     On February 6, 2012, Dennis Ruffin was parked in front of his

Paterson home in a vehicle owned by his sister, Annett Ruffin.

Delroy Clarke, riding a bicycle, struck the driver's door of the

Ruffin vehicle, which was slightly ajar.                 Clarke thereafter filed

suit in Somerset County seeking damages from the Ruffins for

injuries he suffered in the collision.                   The Ruffins failed to

appear and defend the action.               Consequently, on April 14, 2014,

following a proof hearing, the court assigned 100% liability to

the Ruffins for the injuries Clarke sustained, and entered judgment

against them for $75,000.

     Because      Annett     Ruffin    had       no   bodily   injury   liability

insurance coverage, and failed to satisfy the judgment, Clarke

asserted    a    claim     against    the       New   Jersey   Property-Liability

Insurance       Guaranty     Association          ("NJPLIGA"),     as   statutory

administrator of the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund ("UCJF").

Created pursuant to the New Jersey Property-Liability Insurance

                                            2                            A-1046-16T2
Guaranty Act, 
N.J.S.A. 17:30A-1 to -20 (the "Act"), NJPLIGA is "a

private, nonprofit, unincorporated" Association. 
N.J.S.A. 17:30A-

6; Thomsen v. Mercer-Charles, 
187 N.J. 197, 205 (2006).

            The purpose of this [A]ct is to provide a
            mechanism for the payment of covered claims
            under certain insurance policies, to avoid
            excessive delay in payment, to minimize
            financial loss to claimants or policyholders
            because of the insolvency of an insurer, to
            assist in the detection and prevention of
            insurer   insolvencies,    to   provide    an
            association to assess the cost of such
            protection among insurers, and to provide a
            mechanism to run off, manage, administer and
            pay claims asserted against the Unsatisfied
            Claim and Judgment Fund [and other funds.]

            [N.J.S.A. 17:30A-2.]

     The   UCJF   Law,    
N.J.S.A.     39:6-61     to   -90,   was    enacted     to

compensate persons who are injured or suffer property damage "as

the result of a motor vehicle accident who through no fault of

their own have no recourse to any insurance coverage. . . ."

Cynthia M. Craig & Daniel J. Pomeroy, New Jersey Auto Ins. Law §

30:1 at 529 (2017).         Since 2003, NJPLIGA has administered the

UCJF's claims.     
N.J.S.A. 17:30A-2.1(g).

     On September 2, 2014, the court in the Somerset County action

entered a consent order pursuant to which NJPLIGA agreed to pay

Clarke $12,500.    In return, Clarke agreed to execute a release and

stipulation of dismissal as to NJPLIGA.             NJPLIGA then paid Clarke

$12,500    from   the    UCJF,   and   took   an    assignment       of   Clarke's

                                       3                                  A-1046-16T2
unsatisfied $75,000 judgment against Annett Ruffin as required by


N.J.S.A. 39:6-77, which provides:

             The association shall not pay any sum from the
             fund, in compliance with an order made for
             that purpose, in any case in which the claim
             is founded upon a judgment, except a judgment
             obtained against the association under this
             act, until the applicant assigns the judgment
             to the association and, thereupon, the
             association shall be deemed to have all the
             rights of the judgment creditor under the
             judgment and shall enforce and collect the
             same for the full amount thereof with interest
             and costs and if more money is collected upon
             any such judgment than the amount paid out of
             the fund, the association shall pay the
             balance, after reimbursing the fund, to the
             judgment creditor.

     On December 15, 2014, NJPLIGA, as assignee, sent a demand

letter to the Ruffins seeking payment of the $75,000 judgment.

The Ruffins subsequently moved to vacate the default judgment.          On

June 1, 2015, the court vacated the judgment against Dennis Ruffin

and allowed him to file an answer, but denied the motion as to

Annett Ruffin.      On June 24, 2016, the Somerset County litigation

was resolved by way of a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice

as to Dennis Ruffin.

     In the interim, on October 16, 2015, the Ruffins filed a

declaratory judgment action in Passaic County against NJPLIGA, the

State   of    New   Jersey,   Clarke,   and   others,   challenging   the

constitutionality of the Act.      Pertinent to this appeal, Count II


                                    4                           A-1046-16T2
of the Ruffins' amended complaint alleged that N.J.S.A. 17:30A-6:

(1) is a special private law in violation of Article IV, Section

VII of the New Jersey Constitution; (2) improperly delegates powers

to NJPLIGA in violation of Article III, Section 1; (3) created an

entity that is neither an administrative agency nor a temporary

commission, contrary to Article V, Section IV, paragraph 1; and

(4) grants NJPLIGA an "exclusive franchise" in violation of those

provisions.

     Count III of the amended complaint alleged that, because

NJPLIGA was unconstitutionally created, the provisions of the UCJF

legislation governing assignment of claims to UCJF (
N.J.S.A. 39:6-

77) and subrogation (
N.J.S.A. 39:6-85) are unenforceable.                Count

IV alleged that 
N.J.S.A. 17:30A-6 violates Article IV, Section

VII, paragraph 5, which prohibits the citation of one statute in

another.    Count V asserted a violation of the New Jersey Civil

Rights   Act    (CRA),    
N.J.S.A.   10:6-1   to   -2,   in   that   "NJPLIGA

unconstitutionally and unlawfully acted under color of state law

by   settling    its     claim   against   [the    Ruffins]   with   .   .    .

Clarke. . . ."

     Defendants Clarke, NJPLIGA, and the State filed separate

motions to dismiss the Ruffins' Passaic County complaint pursuant

to Rule 4:6-2(e), and the Ruffins in turn moved for summary

judgment.      On March 21, 2016, the court entered companion orders

                                      5                              A-1046-16T2
dismissing the complaint against NJPLIGA, the State, and Clarke,

and denying the Ruffins' motion for summary judgment.

     Judge     Bruno   Mongiardo     issued     a   detailed   written     opinion

explaining his decision.         The judge began his analysis by noting:

              The NJPLIGA Act creates a "private, nonprofit
              unincorporated legal entity" known as NJPLIGA.
              
N.J.S.A. 17:30A-6.    By passing this Act in
              1974, the Legislature sought to bring our
              State   within   a   nationwide    network   of
              individual insurance guaranty association
              statutes designed to spread equitably the risk
              of insurer insolvency among the states.
              Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 172
              N.J. 504 (2002).    The Legislature patterned
              the NJPLIGA Act on a national model law
              promulgated by the National Association of
              Insurance Commissioners.      It is remedial
              legislation      deserving      of      liberal
              construction. [Thomsen, 
187 N.J. at 211].

     Judge      Mongiardo      concluded      "[t]he   NJPLIGA      Act   and   its

statutory charge to administer the UCJF do not constitute special

or private legislation proscribed by the New Jersey Constitution."

Citing New Jersey State Bar Ass'n v. State of New Jersey, 
382 N.J.

Super. 284 (App. Div. 2005), the judge noted "[t]he question of

whether   a    legislative     act   is    unconstitutionally       'special'    or

'private'      is   answered    by   judicial       scrutiny   of    whether    the

Legislature acted with a rational basis."              The judge found "[t]he

creation of NJPLIGA was a rational means of addressing a legitimate

legislative purpose" and "[t]he rational basis of the Legislature

for enacting the NJPLIGA Act is clear on the face of the statute.

                                          6                               A-1046-16T
2 See N.J.S.A. 17:30A-2."      The judge further found the Act "includes

all members of the class it is intended to protect" and "does not

exclude     any   persons    who   should    be   included     within     the

classification it created."

     Next, Judge Mongiardo rejected the Ruffins' argument that the

Act violates constitutional separation of powers and delegation

doctrines.    He reasoned:

            NJPLIGA is not a legislative or executive
            agency.      It  is   a   private   nonprofit
            unincorporated legal entity comprised of
            member insurers. 
N.J.S.A. 17:30A-6. The New
            Jersey Legislature which maintains principal
            authority to regulate the insurance market in
            New Jersey has delegated certain functions of
            the inherently private automobile insurance
            market to be administered by NJPLIGA for the
            sake of efficiency. See 
N.J.S.A. 17:30A-2.1,
            [-]2.2, and [-]6.1.

     Judge Mongiardo also rejected the Ruffins' remaining claims.

He found "
N.J.S.A. 17:30A-6 does not violate the prohibition

against inserting statutory citations into the statutes.                  The

purpose of the constitutional provision is to suppress deceptive

and fraudulent legislation.        The citations in 
N.J.S.A. 17:30A-6

have just the opposite purpose." The judge also found the Ruffins'

challenge    to   the   assignment   of     Clarke's   claim   to   NJPLIGA

"baseless," and their "unsupported allegation that the State has

violated a provision of the [CRA] . . . utterly without merit."



                                     7                              A-1046-16T2
     On appeal, the Ruffins renew the arguments they presented to

the trial court.     They also contend the Act violates Article IV,

Section VII, paragraph 10 and the equal protection and due process

clauses of the New Jersey Constitution, and attack the validity

of the assignment statute, 
N.J.S.A. 39:6-77, as a special law.

     Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable legal

standards,    we   conclude    that   Judge   Mongiardo's   decision      was

correct, and we affirm for the reasons stated in his comprehensive

opinion issued on March 21, 2016.         We add only that assignment of

Clarke's claim to NJPLIGA did not deprive the Ruffins of any

defenses they had not already forfeited as a result of the default

judgment Clarke obtained against them.            Plaintiff's remaining

appellate    arguments   are   without    sufficient   merit   to   warrant

further discussion here.       R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

     Affirmed.




                                      8                             A-1046-16T2