Patricia C. Myska, Dax Morales, Katherine K. Wagner and John B. Otdisco v. New Jersey Manufacturers insurance Company, Aaa Mid-Atlantic Insurance Company of New Jersey and Palisades Insurance Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4398-13T4
A-0275-14T4

PATRICIA C. MYSKA, DAX MORALES
and KATHERINE K. WAGNER,
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiffs,
May 8, 2015
and
APPELLATE DIVISION
JOHN B. TODISCO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS
INSURANCE COMPANY and AAA
MID-ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY
OF NEW JERSEY,

Defendants,

and

PALISADES INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Respondent.
_________________________________________

PATRICIA MYSKA and KATHERINE WAGNER,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

and

JOHN B. TODISCO and DAX MORALES,

Plaintiffs,

v.
NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS
INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Respondent,

and

PALISADES INSURANCE COMPANY and
AAA MID-ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY
OF NEW JERSEY,

Defendants.
_________________________________________

Argued January 20, 2015 - Decided May 8, 2015

Before Judges Lihotz, Espinosa and St. John.1

On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket
No. L-5136-13.

Eric D. Katz and Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr.,
argued the cause for appellants (Mazie
Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC, and Keefe
Bartels, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Katz, David M.
Estes, and Mr. Sullivan, on the briefs).

Bruce D. Greenberg and Daniel J. Pomeroy
argued the cause for respondent (A-0275-14)
New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company
(Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, and Pomeroy,
Heller & Ley, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Greenberg,
Mr. Pomeroy, and Karen E. Heller, on the
briefs).

Robert J. DelTufo (Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, LLP) argued the cause for
respondent (A-4398-13) Palisades Insurance
Company.

1
Judge Espinosa did not participate in oral argument.
However, with the consent of counsel, she has joined in this
opinion. R. 2:13-2(b).

2 A-4398-13T4
 The opinion of the court was delivered by

LIHOTZ, P.J.A.D.

On remand from the Supreme Court, we consider these

appeals, calendared back-to-back and consolidated for purposes

of our opinion. In their putative class action complaint,

plaintiffs challenged defendant-insurers' alleged denial of

diminution in value damages, as a covered component of the

underinsured and uninsured motorist provisions in their

respective automobile insurance policies. The interlocutory

orders under review were entered upon defendants' motions to

dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. Specifically, plaintiffs

Patricia C. Myska, Katherine K. Wagner, and John B. Todisco

appeal from two March 21, 2014 orders striking their class

allegations and dismissing their claims against defendant

insurers for violation of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A.

56:8-1 to -195. Prior to discovery, the Law Division judge

concluded class certification was improper and the CFA

inapplicable. He severed the surviving breach of contract and

the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims

alleged by Myska and Wagner against defendant New Jersey

Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJM); all claims asserted by

Todisco against defendant Palisades Insurance Company

3 A-4398-13T4
(Palisades) were dismissed and the matter was ordered to proceed

to arbitration.2

Plaintiffs challenge as premature the denial of their class

allegations. Further, they argue the judge erred in ordering

the dismissal of their CFA claims and for Todisco to proceed to

arbitration.

Following our review, we affirm the denial of class

certification, agreeing the controversy does not lend itself to

a class action because the facts underpinning each plaintiff's

claims were dependent upon the individual insurance policy

provisions, the distinct vehicle damaged and the specific

calculation of damages alleged, which require separate

litigation of every action. We also determine the amounts in

controversy are not nominal and would not prevent any party's

singular pursuit of relief were their claims individually tried.

Finally, specific to the Palisades policy, we determine the

arbitration provision is unenforceable as it fails to meet the

requirements outlined in Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp.,

L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014), petition for certiorari filed Jan.

21, 2015, and reverse that provision of the Law Division order.

Nevertheless, because Todisco failed to file a claim for

2
Plaintiff Dax Morales voluntarily dismissed claims against
defendant AAA Mid-Atlantic Insurance Company of New Jersey.

4 A-4398-13T4
diminution of value damages, his complaint was properly

dismissed. Consequently, the Law Division order is affirmed as

modified.

I.

In this section we recite the undisputed facts surrounding

each plaintiff's claims taken from the motion record. Because

there are two parties insured by NJM, we group together the

facts surrounding the claims presented by Myska and Wagner (NJM

plaintiffs). We then examine Todisco's allegations against

Palisades. Finally, we discuss the motions and the trial

judge's findings and conclusions undergirding the challenged

orders.

A.

On July 31, 2011, Myska's 2011 Chevy Equinox suffered

physical damage when struck by an uninsured or underinsured

tortfeasor. On November 14, 2012, Wagner's 2011 Mercedes Benz

E350 was struck by a motorist who ran a red light, causing

significant damage requiring structural repair. The tortfeasor

was either an uninsured or underinsured motorist (UM/UIM).

Myska and Wagner were insured under separate automobile policies

issued by NJM. It is agreed their accidents occurred within

their respective policy periods and both submitted claims

invoking the respective NJM policy provisions.

5 A-4398-13T4
 NJM satisfied claims for repair of physical damage to the

NJM plaintiffs' vehicles, in accordance with the terms of their

respective policies. Despite repair, Myska and Wagner each

maintained their vehicles' values had decreased as a direct

result of the accidents. In April 2013, Myska and Wagner

separately submitted a second claim for payment, seeking payment

for diminution of value.

With respect to the issues raised on appeal, the NJM

policies contain identical terms governing payment for

diminution of value following conduct by an UM/UIM. Part B of

the NJM policies addresses the scope of uninsured motorists

coverage, and provides, generally: "[NJM] will pay compensatory

damages which an insured is legally entitled to recover from the

owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle or underinsured

motor vehicle" arising from "[p]roperty damage caused by an

accident . . . ." "Property damage as used in this endorsement

means injury to or destruction of: 1. Your covered auto."

To support their diminution of value claims, Myska and

Wagner separately supplied a report from Collision Consulting

(CC), quantifying the amount sought. As to Myska, CC inspected

her vehicle to "assess the quality and thoroughness of the

repairs performed as well as to determine what effect, if any,

the loss . . . would have on the value of this vehicle." CC

6 A-4398-13T4
defined "Inherent Diminishment of Value" as "the loss of value

stemming from [an automobile's] accident history[,] as opposed

to the diminishment [of value] that could arise from improper or

defective/deficient repair." CC suggested:

[w]hen a reasonable and prudent
consumer is given the choice between two
vehicles, one that has sustained previous
damage and one that had not . . . they will
buy the one that has not been involved in an
accident if priced the same. For the
consumer demand to be equal on the two
vehicles, the damaged vehicle, even when
properly repaired, must be less in price.

. . . .

It is generally accepted that the
proper measure of loss is the difference
between the fair market value (FMV) of the
property (vehicle) immediately prior to the
negligent act and the fair market value
after the loss.

Averaging the vehicle's calculated residual value in a

third-party sale and after a trade-in, CC determined the average

residual diminished value for Myska's vehicle was $14,399. In

the report prepared following inspection of Wagner's vehicle, CC

set forth the same definitions and utilized the same methodology

to calculate the average residual diminished value of Wagner's

vehicle as $17,524.

Following its receipt, NJM responded to Myska and Wagner in

separate, but identical letters, stating "NJM denies payment of

7 A-4398-13T4
[the] diminished value claim[s] at this time." The letters

explained:

[T]o the extent that New Jersey law
recognizes claims for diminished value, you
have failed to offer sufficient proof of
diminished value for [the] vehicle. . . .

. . . .

In support of your claim, you provided
a report by [CC]. The report is
insufficient to support a claim for monetary
loss. Specifically, the report fails to
describe the evidence that supports the
author's conclusion that [the] vehicle
sustained a diminished value for a certain
amount. No data is provided for the sales
price of comparable vehicles that were sold
after being involved in an accident. Also
the raw data used by the author to come to
his conclusion regarding the diminution in
value has not been provided.

The letter recited the absence of available authority to guide

calculation of the diminished value loss, noting:

[t]he New Jersey Department of Banking and
Insurance [(DOBI)] does not recognize
diminution in value in its regulations
relating to "fair and equitable settlements
applicable to property and liability
insurance with regard to third[-]party
claimants." N.J.A.C. 11.2-17.10. Nor does
the [DOBI] recognize the claim for
diminished value in its regulations relating
to "Adjustment of Partial Losses." N.J.A.C.
11.3-10.3. . . . It is clear that these
regulations do not contain a requirement
that an insurer pay diminished value damages
to a third[-]party claimant. Moreover,
there is no relevant New Jersey statute,
addressing this issue.

8 A-4398-13T4
 In addition to the above, the Model
Civil Jury Charges, which summarize relevant
New Jersey law, state that if a vehicle is
not deemed a total loss "and it can be
repaired at a cost less than the difference
between its market value before and its
market value after the damage occurred[,]
the plaintiff's damages would be limited to
the cost of repairs." Model Civil Jury
Charge 8.44. Additionally, motor vehicle
appraisal guides[,] including the NADA
Official Used Car Guide and Kelley's Blue
Book do not consider prior accidents as a
factor when calculating their published
figures. Based upon the information
provided, there is insufficient evidence to
prove that [plaintiff] sustained a
diminished value loss that would justify
payment over and above the cost of repairs.

Lastly, the time at which the alleged
damage would be capable of true measurement
is unknown. Thus, until the vehicle was
sold, the measurement of the alleged
diminution claim would be uncertain.
Assuming that a damaged vehicle has been
properly repaired with high quality
replacement parts, it is reasonable to
encounter a situation where an expert would
state that the vehicle has not decreased in
value except for the passage of time between
the accident, and repair of the vehicle and
the sale of the vehicle.

Neither Myska nor Wagner replied to NJM's letter and

neither submitted the requested data used by CC to support its

damage calculations. Instead, the NJM plaintiffs filed a

putative class action complaint on behalf of NJM insureds,

alleging the insurer's actionable denial of payment for

diminution of value represented a breach of contract, breach of

9 A-4398-13T4
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of

the CFA. On behalf of the class, the NJM plaintiffs sought to

"put an end to NJM's systematic practice of denying, obfuscating

coverage of, or otherwise avoiding claims by New Jersey

consumers for the diminution of value of insured vehicles

resulting from third-party UM/UIM." Further, the NJM plaintiffs

asserted NJM failed to disclose the right to submit third-party

UM/UIM diminution of value claims at the time their respective

repair claims were made.

B.

Todisco insured two automobiles under a policy issued by

Palisades. A 2007 Bentley Continental, covered under the

policy, was involved in an accident with an uninsured or

underinsured tortfeasor on June 13, 2012. Todisco submitted a

claim to repair the damage sustained to the Bentley, which

Palisades paid in accordance with the policy terms.

Subsequently, in a February 15, 2013 letter to Palisades,

Todisco advised Palisades he was "making a claim for diminished

value damages" and requested the insurer's "position with

respect to a diminished value claim," pursuant to the policy's

UM/UIM coverage provisions. The letter did not recite the

amount of damages suffered or a method to determine the

associated loss.

10 A-4398-13T4
 The Palisades policy provisions contain similarities to the

NJM policy, as both contracts are based on the Standard New

Jersey Automobile Policy (as distinguished from a Basic

Automobile Liability Policy),3 but the documents are not

identical. Nothing in the Palisades policy explicitly precludes

recovery for diminution of value damages.

C.

NJM moved to dismiss the NJM plaintiffs' complaint for

failure to state a claim for relief, contending the NJM policies

provided coverage for diminution of value damages, if supported.

NJM argued it did not "fail to pay" the claims; plaintiffs

simply failed to submit "adequate proof to support the

substantial diminution of value damages claimed via the opinion

of Collision Consulting"; therefore, there was no breach of

contract. NJM also asserted New Jersey law does not impose a

duty to instruct insureds regarding policy provisions; the CFA

does not govern disputes regarding payment of insurance

benefits; and Myska and Wagner "provide[d] no basis supporting

either reformation . . . or . . . injunctive relief." Finally,

the notice of motion also requested "the [c]ourt enter an order

severing the action by plaintiffs Wagner and Myska against [NJM]

3
See N.J. Dept. of Banking & Ins., http://www.state.
nj.us/dobi/division_consumers/insurance/standardpolicy.html
(last visited Apr. 15, 2015).

11 A-4398-13T4
from the action brought by . . . Todisco," arguing joinder of

unrelated claims against multiple unrelated insurance companies

was improper.

During argument, NJM acknowledged the policy provided for

reimbursement of all legal available damages, which would

include diminution of value damages; however, the proofs by

Myska and Wagner were deficient. Plaintiffs opposed this

position, suggesting NJM was attempting to prematurely seek

summary judgment.

Palisades filed its own motion to dismiss Todisco's claims,

asserting different reasons. Palisades maintained Todisco never

submitted a claim for diminution of value damages or identified

a policy provision that was breached. Further, Palisades argued

coverage disputes must be determined in an arbitral forum.

The Law Division judge entered two orders on March 21,

2014, accompanied by a written opinion. The first, regarding

NJM, granted in part and denied in part, its requested relief.

Specifically, the judge found certain allegations legally

untenable. He noted the law imposed no duty upon insurers to

advise plaintiffs of policy provisions or explain clearly worded

provisions of a policy once the policy was issued. Accordingly,

claims premised on the failure to advise plaintiffs of a right

to pursue damages arising from a proven diminishment of value

12 A-4398-13T4
lacked merit. He also concluded claims contending failure to

pay benefits were not within the scope of the CFA. Further, the

judge dismissed plaintiffs' demands for reformation, injunctive

relief, and punitive damages, after finding the allegations were

"nothing more than conclusory statements[,] which are directly

contradicted by documents that are integral to the [c]omplaint."

However, the judge allowed the NJM plaintiffs' breach of

contract claims to proceed "individually," after finding "the

factual differences between the parties required a separation of

the claims."

As to these claims, the judge denied class certification,

concluding a class action would be unsuitable based on the

nature of the significant factual differences regarding the

allegations supporting each plaintiff's action. The judge found

plaintiffs' "common allegation that [they] suffered harm because

they did not receive coverage for the diminution of value of

their vehicle[s] is contradicted by the unique circumstances

surrounding the[ir] different claims." He noted by way of

illustration, NJM's proofs showing the NJM plaintiffs' claims

were not denied, merely unsubstantiated, and, as asserted by

Palisades, Todisco never filed such a claim.

The second order addressed Palisades' requested relief,

which was granted. The judge dismissed Todisco's complaint and

13 A-4398-13T4
compelled him to arbitrate his claims "in accordance with the

arbitration provisions contained in his" insurance policy. The

judge characterized Todisco's letter as a "mere inquiry" and

found it did not "afford[] Palisades the opportunity to evaluate

a bona fide claim under the terms of the . . . policy and

respond to it." Further, the Palisades contract contained an

agreement to arbitrate all issues involving the insured's and

insurer's "relationship and any disputes occurring between

them."

The NJM plaintiffs appealed from the provisions of the

March 21, 2014 order striking the class allegations and

dismissing their CFA claims (A-0275-14). Todisco separately

appealed from the dismissal of his claims in favor of complying

with the policy's arbitration clause (A-4398-13). Plaintiffs

moved for leave to appeal, which was denied by this court. By

order dated September 9, 2014, the Supreme Court granted leave

for plaintiffs to appeal and summarily remanded the matter to

this court for review of the merits.

II.

Some of the arguments raised in the separate appeals are

identical, and others are distinctly based upon claims under an

individual insurance policy. In addressing the various issues

14 A-4398-13T4
presented, we join claims common to both appeals. Before doing

so, we set forth the standards guiding our review.

A.

The orders under review resulted from defendants'

respective motions to dismiss, filed pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e).

The standard traditionally utilized by
courts to determine whether to dismiss a
pleading for failure to state a claim on
which relief may be granted is a generous
one. As we have explained, "[i]n reviewing
a complaint dismissed under Rule 4:6-2(e)
our inquiry is limited to examining the
legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on
the face of the complaint." Printing Mart-
Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., [116 N.J.
739,] 746 [(1989)]. The essential test is
simply "whether a cause of action is
'suggested' by the facts." Ibid. (quoting
Valentzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109 N.J.
189, 192 (1988)).

[Green v. Morgan Props., 215 N.J. 431, 451-
52 (2013) (alteration in original).]

Where a "complaint states no basis for relief and . . .

discovery would not provide one, dismissal of the complaint

[under Rule 4:6-2] is appropriate." Cnty. of Warren v. State,

409 N.J. Super. 495, 503 (App. Div. 2009) certif. denied, 201

N.J. 153, cert. denied, 561 U.S. 1026, 130 S. Ct. 3508, 177 L.

Ed. 2d 1092 (2010).

An additional overlay results because plaintiffs seek

review as a class action. See R. 4:32-1 (stating requirements

for maintaining a class action). "A class action, generally,

15 A-4398-13T4
permits one or more individuals to act as plaintiff or

plaintiffs in representing the interests of a larger group of

persons with similar claims." Lee v. Carter-Reed Co., 203 N.J.

496, 517 (2010). The "action permits 'claimants to band

together' and, in doing so, gives them a measure of equality

against a corporate adversary, thus providing 'a procedure to

remedy a wrong that might otherwise go unredressed.'" Id. at

517-18 (quoting In re Cadillac V8-6-4 Class Action, 93 N.J. 412,

424 (1983)).

In our review of each of these questions, we owe "no

deference to the trial court's conclusions." Rezem Family

Assocs., LP v. Borough of Millstone, 423 N.J. Super. 103, 114

(App. Div.), certif. denied, 208 N.J. 368 (2011). Rather, we

must "search[] the complaint in depth and with liberality to

ascertain whether the fundament of a cause of action may be

gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim, opportunity

being given to amend if necessary." Green, supra, 215 N.J. at

451-52 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). See

also Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs Local No. 68 Welfare Fund

v. Merck & Co., 192 N.J. 372, 386 (2007) (holding questions of

law related to class certification are reviewed de novo).

16 A-4398-13T4
 B.

Common to both appeals is whether class certification was

prematurely denied. Plaintiffs argue the determination to

strike the class allegations prior to discovery, after finding

the claims were unsuitable to proceed as a class action, was

error. They also contend the court "overstepped its bounds" in

analyzing the issues, by considering documents not referenced in

the complaint and drew improper inference from this document

review.

"Class certification decisions rest [o]n the sound

discretion of the trial court." Muise v. GPU, Inc., 371 N.J.

Super. 13, 31 (App. Div. 2004) (citing In re Cadillac, supra, 93

N.J. at 437). "The analysis must be 'rigorous' and 'look beyond

the pleadings to understand the claims, defenses, relevant

facts, and applicable substantive law.'" Local Baking Prods.,

Inc. v. Kosher Bagel Munch, Inc., 421 N.J. Super. 268, 274 (App.

Div.) (quoting Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88,

106-07 (2007)), certif. denied, 209 N.J. 96 (2011).

In reviewing the grant or denial of class certification,

"an appellate court must ascertain whether the trial court has

followed [Rule 4:32-1(b)(3)'s] standards and properly exercised

its discretion." Carter-Reed, supra, 203 N.J. at 506. An

"abuse of discretion . . . arises when a decision is made

17 A-4398-13T4
without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from

established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis."

Flagg v. Essex Cnty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The provisions of Rule 4:32-1 obligate putative plaintiffs

to satisfy general and specific requirements. Local No. 68

Welfare Fund, supra, 192 N.J. at 382; Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J.

at 106. See also Rule 4:32-1(a), (b). Prerequisites for class

certification include: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and

adequacy of representation. Carter-Reed, supra, 203 N.J. at

511-512. Class certification is appropriate only if:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable, (2) there are
questions of law or fact common to the
class, (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the
claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the
class.

[R. 4:32-1(a).]

"In addition to meeting the initial requirements of Rule

4:32-1(a), the party seeking to certify the class must also

satisfy one of the three criteria enumerated in Rule 4:32-1(b)."

Varacallo v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 332 N.J. Super. 31, 41-42

(App. Div. 2000). These considerations examine "not only the

interests of class members and other parties, but also the

18 A-4398-13T4
effect of class certification on efficient judicial management,"

In re Cadillac, supra, 93 N.J. at 436, and include: (1) whether

individual lawsuits present risk of inconsistent judgments; (2)

the appropriateness of injunctive relief as to the class as a

whole; or (3) whether common questions or law and fact

predominate over individualized questions and a class action is

superior to other available methods of adjudication. Muise,

supra, 371 N.J. Super. at 30. Regarding the last provision,

pertinent findings should be made on:

(A) the interest of members of the class in
individually controlling the prosecution or
defense of separate actions; (B) the extent
and nature of any litigation concerning the
controversy already commenced by or against
members of the class; (C) the desirability
or undesirability in concentrating the
litigation of the claims in the particular
forum; and (D) the difficulties likely to be
encountered in the management of a class
action.

[R. 4:32-1(b)(3).]

In short, "the movant must demonstrate both the predominance of

the common issues and the 'superiority' of a cause of action

over other available trial techniques." Saldana v. City of

Camden, 252 N.J. Super. 188, 196 (App. Div. 1991).

"'New Jersey courts . . . have consistently held that the

class action rule should be liberally construed.'" Carter-Reed,

supra, 203 N.J. at 518 (alteration in original) (quoting

19 A-4398-13T4
Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 103). Plaintiffs seeking class

certification have the burden of proof as to each of the rule's

requirements. See Muise, supra, 371 N.J. Super. at 32.

C.

Plaintiffs' initial challenge to the order striking class

certification focus on the timing of the judge's determination.

Plaintiffs assert the judge erred in denying class certification

prior to discovery, incorrectly expanded review of documents

outside the four corners of the complaint, and entered the order

despite notice.

1.

No precise procedures are established for granting or

denying class certification at the incipient stage of

litigation. Rather, our rules state "the court shall, at an

early practicable time, determine by order whether to certify

the action." Rule 4:32-2(a). This language, adopted in 2007,

"is intended to make clear that the class determination need not

be the first event in the court's consideration of [an] action."

Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 3.2.2 on

R. 4:32-2 (2015).4

4
The prior iteration of this requirement provided: "As soon
as practicable after the commencement of an action brought as a
class action, the court shall determine by order whether it is
to be so maintained." Riley v. New Rapids Carpet Center, 61
(continued)

20 A-4398-13T4
 Citing dicta from Riley, plaintiffs suggest it is well

established that class allegations may not be struck in the

course of a pre-trial motion to dismiss. See Riley, supra, 61

N.J. at 228 ("[A] court should be slow to hold that a suit may

not proceed as a class action."). Plaintiffs suggest the

"circumstances in Riley, where premature dismissal was reversed,

are identical, if not less egregious than, those in this case."

Although we agree courts must liberally view class

allegations and allow reasonable inferences to be gleaned from

the complaint's allegations and search for a possible basis for

class relief so as to avoid premature dismissals, Carter-Reed,

supra, 203 N.J. at 505-06, 518, we do not abide a view that

precludes dismissal, following the required analysis, when a

court determines alleged claims do not properly lend themselves

to class certification. See Riley, supra, 61 N.J. at 225

(holding "a class action should lie unless it is clearly

infeasible").

In Riley, the Court examined the pre-trial denial of class

certification for bait-and-switch type consumer fraud claims,

(continued)
N.J. 218, 228 (1972). The Court commented on this rule noting,
"the draftsman was mindful of the difficulties involved and of
the latitude required. It would be rare that a decision to deny
a class action should be made on the face of the complaint."
Ibid.

21 A-4398-13T4
where the defendants advertised a carpet deal at a special low

price, accompanied by a free gift, and when the plaintiffs

attempted to take advantage of that deal, were redirected and

upsold a more expensive product. Id. at 222. The Court

considered the complaint and noted:

No doubt a consumer class action may
hold problems not found in an antitrust
action or a stock fraud suit where some
rather precise act or omission radiates harm
throughout the class. If the
representations to consumers are so diverse
that all of the individual transactions must
be tried, there would be no economy of
effort and expense and the litigation would
be unmanageable.

[Id. at 227.]

Under these circumstances, the Court found pre-trial

dismissal of the class allegations erroneous because the

plaintiffs' complaint included "a showing of a possible basis

for class relief" as to whether the defendants "ever intended to

sell carpet on the terms advertised." Id. at 229. Elaborating,

the Court instructed:

When, as here, the approach to the consumer
appears to be sharp or slick, a plaintiff
should be permitted to seek relevant data
from [the] defendants so that an informed
decision may be made on the class-action
issue. Here, for example, it might be
revealing if [the] plaintiffs were permitted
to inquire of [the] defendants as to how
many sales were made on the advertised basis
and how many "free gifts" were delivered.
The answers might support the charge that a

22 A-4398-13T4
 bait-and-switch tactic was employed, or as
suggested by the positions taken by [the
defendants], that the advertisement was
merely a pretext to obtain salable leads of
persons in the market for carpet.

[Ibid.]

Contrary to plaintiffs' suggestions in this matter, the

test does not merely turn on the stage of the litigation.

Rather, dismissal is dependent on the nature of the claims and

the propriety of their presentation as a class action, in

accordance with the provisions of Rule 4:32-1. We flatly reject

plaintiffs' urging to impose a bright-line rule prohibiting

examination of the propriety of class certification until

discovery is undertaken. See e.g., Local Baking Products,

supra, 421 N.J. Super. at 280 (upholding dismissal of class

certification when putative class could not meet "the more

demanding criteria of predominance and superiority" (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted)).

After accepting as true all of the allegations in a

complaint, and considering the issues in the context of a

challenge to class certification, the central inquiry remains:

whether the putative class raises "questions of law or fact

common to the members of the class [that] predominate over any

questions affecting only individual members, and that a class

23 A-4398-13T4
action is superior to other available methods for the fair and

efficient adjudication of the controversy." R. 4:32-1(b)(3).

Guided by that pronouncement, we turn to the facts at hand.

Plaintiffs defined the proposed class in their complaint as:

"All persons currently insured or previously
insured by [NJM], Palisades . . . at any
time during the six (6) year period from the
date of filing of this lawsuit who presented
UM/UIM, physical damage claims for their
insured vehicles arising from vehicular
collisions or other accidental losses and
were denied coverage or compensation, or did
not otherwise receive coverage or
compensation, for diminution of value of
their vehicles in response to these claims."

The questions of law or fact common to all members are

alleged as:

(a) Whether [defendants] have issued
automobile insurance policies that expressly
prohibit class members from recovering for
diminution of value of their vehicles
arising from third-party UM/UIM vehicular
collisions or other accidental losses;

(b) Whether [defendants] have issued . . .
policies that are ambiguous or silent with
regard to [diminution of value coverage]
. . . arising from third-party UM/UIM
vehicular collisions or other accidental
losses;

(c) Whether [defendants] . . . have
improperly denied compensation for
diminution of value in response to third-
party UM/UIM physical damage claims . . . ;

(d) Whether [defendants] have engaged in a
pattern or practice of failing to pay for
diminution of value;

24 A-4398-13T4
 (e) Whether [defendants] breached, and
continue to breach, their contractual
obligations by not, inter alia, paying for
diminution of value claims.

The foundation of these allegations is breach of each

plaintiff's respective insurance contract. Although, as

plaintiffs suggest, insurance contract interpretation is a

"[p]urely legal question," Badiali v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Group, 220

N.J. 544, 555 (2015), that alone will not permit these matters

to proceed as a class action. The significant legal conflict

centers on the terms of each insurance contract. Here, the

contracts of the actual and presumed putative plaintiffs are not

identical.

There is no statutory or other regulatory directive which

mandates the use of a standard form of automobile liability

policy. Automobile policy provisions, although reviewed by the

DOBI, remain individualized between an insurer and insured.

Accordingly, there is no common provision directed to payment of

diminution of value damages payable as a result of UM/UIM

claims. The lack of uniformity in such contract coverage is

easily illustrated by the two named defendant-insurers, whose

respective policies contain divergent provisions governing such

claims.

Thus, an inquiry into the breach of such contracts may be

as varied as the number of insurers that issue policies and the

25 A-4398-13T4
vehicles those policies cover. Even when policies include

similar provisions, such as the UM/UIM provisions in the NJM

plaintiffs' policies, the facts and circumstances surrounding

the claim and an insured's compliance with the policy terms to

submit claims remains unique.

Typicality among defendants to the putative class

allegations is also absent. NJM acknowledged diminution of

value damages were included within the scope of the stated

coverage,5 and the NJM plaintiffs' claims were not denied, just

not paid because they lacked sufficient proof to support the

underlying basis for the amount sought. On the other hand,

Palisades argued Todisco never filed a claim asserting such

coverage, and if he had, that coverage dispute was subject to

mandatory arbitration (an issue we separately analyze below).

The individualized facts and circumstances of the

relationship between each insurer and its insured also precludes

predominance. R. 4:32-1(b)(3) (stating the class certification

5
The record contains a form of NJM policy but not
plaintiffs' actual policies. We have identified the UM/UIM
provision cited to govern plaintiff's claims. We also observe
Part D of this document, entitled "COVERAGE FOR DAMAGE TO YOUR
AUTO," generally outlines the available coverage for, and
limitations on liability to, payments for vehicle damage. Under
a subsection entitled "EXCLUSIONS," the form policy expressly
states "We will not pay for . . . Loss to your covered auto . .
. due to diminution in value." Because no party has discussed
the impact, if any, of this clause upon the UM/UIM claim, we
will not undertake such consideration.

26 A-4398-13T4
is appropriate when the court finds the questions of law or fact

common to the class predominate over any questions affecting

only individual members). We recognize predominance does not

require "all issues be identical among class members or that

each class member be affected in precisely the same manner."

Local No. 68 Welfare Fund, supra, 192 N.J. at 383 (citing Fiore

v. Hudson Cnty. Employees Pension Comm'n, 151 N.J. Super. 524,

528 (App. Div. 1977)). However, the individualized nature of

the parties' automobile insurance contracts and the

circumstances giving rise to their respective claims for

reimbursement predominates over possible common questions among

class members. Moreover, contrary to plaintiffs' suggestion,

the insurance contracts between the different plaintiffs and

their respective insurers were not substantially similar.

Therefore, neither the commonality requirement of R. 4:32-

1(a)(2) nor the predominance provision of R. 4:43-1(b)(3) were

satisfied.

Plaintiffs also urge "the trial court's unsolicited

elimination of the putative class denied . . . the 'main thrust

of the litigation' because the cost of litigating each claim

individually outweighs the amount of the claim." See Riley,

supra, 61 N.J. at 221. We have defined the principle this way:

Class actions are generally appropriate
where individual plaintiffs have "small

27 A-4398-13T4
 claims" which "are, in isolation, too small
. . . to warrant recourse to litigation
. . . ." Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 104
(internal quotation marks omitted). In such
instances, "the class-action device
equalizes the claimants' ability to
zealously advocate their positions." Ibid.
That equalization principle remedies the
incentive problem facing litigants who seek
only a small recovery. "In short, the class
action's equalization function opens the
courthouse doors for those who cannot enter
alone." Ibid.

[Local Baking Prods., supra, 421 N.J. Super.
at 280 (alteration in original).]

Here, the damage claims asserted by the NJM plaintiffs' are

not nominal. Myska's claim of $14,399 approaches the maximum

Special Civil Part $15,000 cognizable limit, R. 6:1-2(a)(5), and

Wagner's claim of $17,524 clearly exceeds that amount.

Certainly such demands are neither "too small . . . to warrant

recourse to litigation" nor so insignificant to preclude legal

representation forcing plaintiff to enter the courthouse alone.

Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 104 (alteration in original)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We reject as

unfounded the suggestion that the size of the claims proffered

by Myska and Wagner made remedies illusory because each

"individual loss [was] too small to warrant a suit." Muhammad

v. Cnty. Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Del., 189 N.J. 1, 16 (2006).

Following our review, we find the motion judge's analysis

of plaintiffs' allegations as individual to each plaintiff, such

28 A-4398-13T4
that the factual basis for each claim was dependent on a

specific individual experience and not common to the claims of

the other plaintiffs, is supported by the record. This

separateness of each claim precludes class certification. Our

review confirms the record supports the judge's findings and his

conclusion to deny class certification to the parties' distinct

claims for damages resulting from separate accidents covered

under their individualized policies. Further, the amount of

damages at issue for each claim is not so small as to

disincentivize suit.

2.

Related to this issue is plaintiffs' attack on the scope of

documents reviewed by the court in performing its analysis of

the class certification issue. Plaintiffs argue the judge

erroneously considered documents outside the complaint. We

reject this contention as meritless.

In its review, a court may consider documents specifically

referenced in the complaint "without converting the motion into

one for summary judgment." E. Dickerson & Son, Inc. v. Ernst &

Young, LLP, 361 N.J. Super. 362, 365 n.1 (App. Div. 2003),

aff’d, 179 N.J. 500 (2004). "In evaluating motions to dismiss,

courts consider 'allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached

to the complaint, matters of public record, and documents that

29 A-4398-13T4
form the basis of a claim.'" Banco Popular N. Am. v. Gandi, 184

N.J. 161, 183 (2005) (quoting Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217,

222 n.3 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 918, 125 S. Ct. 271,

160 L. Ed. 2d 203 (2004)). "It is the existence of the

fundament of a cause of action in those documents that is

pivotal; the ability of the plaintiff to prove its allegations

is not at issue." Ibid.

Here, in addition to examining the complaint, the judge

considered the insurance policies, correspondence from NJM and

Palisade's purportedly denying the diminution of value claims,

which attached the CC reports presented by Myska and Wagner.

Although the complaint does not describe those documents in

detail, its provisions certainly reference them, and we find no

error in the judge's review when determining the motions. See

Rapaport v. Robin S. Weingast & Assocs., 859 F. Supp. 2d 706,

714 (D.N.J. 2012) ("[W]hen allegations contained in a complaint

are contradicted by the document it cites, the document

controls." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We also reject as unavailing plaintiffs' suggestions the

judge, when reviewing these additional documents, improperly

drew inferences favoring NJM and Palisades, rather than

indulgently granting all favorable inferences to them. Thus,

plaintiffs argue he improperly resolved key factual disputes,

30 A-4398-13T4
such as whether plaintiffs submitted claims for diminution of

value and whether defendants denied those claims, in favor of

NJM and Palisades.

We reject this argument, as the language in the documents

is clear and not susceptible to more than one interpretation.

NJM's correspondence, after considering the NJM plaintiffs'

respective demands, stated payment would not be issued "at this

time" and specified additional documentation required for

further review and consideration. Todisco's letter to Palisades

did not articulate the nature or amount of his purported loss.

3.

Plaintiffs next contend the trial court took sua sponte

action and violated their rights of due process by striking

their class claims without proper notice. We are not persuaded.

"[D]ue process requires an opportunity to be heard at a

meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Doe v. Poritz, 142

N.J. 1, 106 (1995). As plaintiffs point out, courts must guard

against sua sponte action or "resort[ing] to a 'shortcut' for

the purposes of 'good administration' and circumvent[ing] the

basic requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard."

Klier v. Sordoni Skansa Constr. Co., 337 N.J. Super. 76, 84-85

(App. Div. 2001). See Curzi v. Raub, 415 N.J. Super. 1, 25-26,

28 (App. Div. 2010).

31 A-4398-13T4
 Here, in addition to seeking dismissal for failure to state

a claim, NJM sought dismissal of the complaint's class

allegations and demands for "[c]ertification of this action as a

class pursuant to [Rule] 4:32." Specifically, NJM argued the

NJM plaintiffs' complaint presented no actionable allegations

because their claims had not been denied, but rather unpaid

pending further support. Palisades maintained Todisco had not

submitted a claim. Alternatively, NJM requested the immediate

severance of any surviving claims by Myska and Wagner. The

notice of motion and the supporting pleadings placed plaintiffs

on notice their assertions of class certification were attacked

as improper and unwarranted. We find no due process

deprivations.

D.

Plaintiffs assert the judge erred in concluding the CFA did

not apply to the denial of insurance claims, arguing he failed

to recognize their claims alleged unconscionable business

practices, which are cognizable under the CFA. We disagree.

"The language of the CFA evinces a clear legislative intent

that its provisions be applied broadly in order to accomplish

its remedial purpose, namely, to root out consumer fraud."

Lemelledo v. Benefit Mgmt. Corp., 150 N.J. 255, 264 (1997).

"Accordingly, our courts have invoked it to cover a wide variety

32 A-4398-13T4
of practices." Ibid. In Lemelledo, the Court considered

whether the CFA applies to commercial lenders who increase the

principal amount of a loan by adding loan-related services, such

as credit insurance, that the borrowers may not want. Id. at

259-60. In discussing the CFA's application, the Court stated

"although several lower courts have held that the payment of

insurance benefits is not subject to the CFA, our reading of the

CFA convinces us that the statute's language is ample enough to

encompass the sale of insurance policies as goods and services

that are marketed to consumers." Id. at 265 (citations and

footnote omitted). Accordingly, the CFA was held applicable to

insurance sales practices. Id. at 266.

"To prevail on a CFA claim, a plaintiff must establish

three elements: '1) unlawful conduct by defendant; 2) an

ascertainable loss by plaintiff; and 3) a causal relationship

between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.'"

Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 222 (2014) (quoting Bosland v.

Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009)). Under the CFA

an "unlawful practice" is defined to include

unconscionable commercial practice,
deception, fraud, false pretense, false
promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing,
concealment, suppression, or omission of any
material fact with intent that others rely
upon such concealment, suppression or
omission, in connection with the sale or
advertisement of any merchandise or real

33 A-4398-13T4
 estate, or with the subsequent performance
of such person as aforesaid, whether or not
any person has in fact been misled, deceived
or damaged thereby.

[N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.]

Further, "[t]he Legislature included 'services' within the

definition of 'merchandise,' a term that encompasses 'any

objects, wares, goods, commodities, services or anything

offered, directly or indirectly to the public for sale.'"

D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168, 187 (2013) (quoting

N.J.S.A. 56:8-1(c)). Thus, although the CFA must be interpreted

"'broadly to protect consumers from a wide variety of abhorrent

deceptive practices,' it has meaningful limits." Ibid.

(quoting Lee v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 199 N.J. 251, 258

(2009)).

While, we agree Lemelledo authorizes pursuit of a private

right of action against an insurance company for "fraudulent,

deceptive or other similar kind of selling or advertising

practices," Daaleman v. Elizabethtown Gas Co., 77 N.J. 267, 271

(1978), there are limits on the statute's application. For

example, the CFA is not appropriate where a regulatory scheme

"deal[s] specifically, concretely, and pervasively with [a]

particular activity, implying a legislative intent not to

subject parties to multiple regulations that, as applied, will

work at cross-purposes." Lemelledo, supra, 150 N.J. at 270.

34 A-4398-13T4
Further, while the CFA "encompass[es] the sale of insurance

policies as goods and services that are marketed to consumers,"

it was not intended as a vehicle to recover damages for an

insurance company's refusal to pay benefits. Id. at 265. See

Nikiper v. Motor Club of Am. Cos., 232 N.J. Super. 393, 400-01

(App. Div.), certif. denied, 117 N.J. 139 (1989); In re Van

Holt, 163 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir. 1998) ("The mere denial of

insurance benefits to which the plaintiffs believe[] they [are]

entitled does not comprise an unconscionable commercial

practice.").

The NJM plaintiffs assert no facts alleging NJM

fraudulently procured their agreement for coverage. In fact,

the availability of coverage under the policy purchased was

conceded. Therefore, the essence of plaintiffs' causes of

action involve whether they filed and supported a claim for a

specified amount of benefits under their respective policies —

issues which fall outside the scope of the CFA. Kuhnel v. CNA

Ins. Cos., 322 N.J. Super. 568, 582 (App. Div. 1999), certif.

denied, 163 N.J. 12, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 819, 121 S. Ct. 61,

148 L. Ed. 2d 27 (2000) See also Pierzga v. Ohio Cas. Group of

Ins. Cos., 208 N.J. Super. 40, 47 (App. Div.), ("[T]he insurance

industry is already heavily regulated by the Department of

Insurance[, making] exclusive regulatory jurisdiction of

35 A-4398-13T4
insurance companies, at least with respect to the payment of

claims, . . . within the Department of Insurance."), certif.

denied, 104 N.J. 399 (1986).

We are not persuaded by plaintiffs' reliance on Weiss v.

First Unum Life Insurance Company, 482 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 2007).

In that matter, the plaintiff's suit claimed the defendant

discontinued payment of his disability benefits as part of a

racketeering scheme involving an intentional and illegal policy

of rejecting expensive payouts to disabled insureds. Id. at

256. After review, the court reinstated the plaintiff's claims

under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

(RICO), 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1961-1968. Id. at 269. In its analysis,

the court examined whether the plaintiff's claim was covered by

the CFA, which could undercut a RICO suit. Id. at 265-66.

Noting it did "not share the District Court's conviction that

the CFA and its treble damages provision are inapplicable to

schemes to defraud insureds of their benefits," id. at 266, the

Third Circuit concluded "[t]he CFA covers fraud both in the

initial sale (where the seller never intends to pay), and fraud

in the subsequent performance (where the seller at some point

elects not to fulfill its obligations)." Ibid.

We need not determine the soundness of this legal analysis

because the facts in Weiss are significantly distinguishable

36 A-4398-13T4
from those at hand. The court in Weiss found the CFA applied to

allegations of fraudulent discontinuation of previously

authorized benefits. The Court did not discuss the precedent we

have cited, which excludes determination of initial coverage

disputes. Nikiper, supra, 232 N.J. Super. at 401; Kuhnel,

supra, 322 N.J. Super. at 582.

Myska and Wagner also maintain NJM's practice of failing to

disclose an insured's right to seek compensation for diminution

of value, not merely repair of their vehicles, fell within the

ambit of the CFA. We disagree.

"[A]n insured is chargeable with knowledge of the contents

of an insurance policy in the absence of fraud or inequitable

conduct on the part of the carrier." Edwards v. Prudential

Prop. & Cas. Co., 357 N.J. Super. 196, 204 (App. Div.), certif.

denied, 176 N.J. 278 (2003). "Normally, insurance purchasers

are expected to read their policies and the law may fairly

impose upon [them] such restrictions, conditions and limitations

as the average insured would ascertain from such reading." Id.

at 204-205 (alteration in original) (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted). See also Millbrook Tax Fund, Inc. v.

Henry & Assocs., Inc., 344 N.J. Super. 49, 53 (App. Div. 2001)

("[A] policy holder is obligated to read the policy he receives

and is bound by the clear terms thereof").

37 A-4398-13T4
 E.

Our final consideration concerns the arbitration provision

contained within the Palisades policy. Todisco argues the trial

court erred in dismissing his claims in their entirety in favor

of arbitral review. Supplemental submissions filed by Todisco

rely on Atalese, which defines the necessary requirements of a

clause waiving one's right to sue in court, in favor of binding

parties to pursue arbitration. Atalese, supra, 219 N.J. at 442-

44. Atalese was decided after the trial court reviewed this

matter, so the judge did not have the benefit of the Court's

guidance.

In Atalese, the Court emphasized an arbitration clause in a

contract must "assure that the parties know that in electing

arbitration as the exclusive remedy, they are waiving their

time-honored right to sue." Id. at 444 (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted). "By its very nature, an agreement to

arbitrate involves a waiver of a party's right to have her

claims and defenses litigated in court." NAACP of Camden Cnty.

E. v. Foulke Mgmt. Corp., 421 N.J. Super. 404, 425 (App. Div.),

certif. granted, 209 N.J. 96 (2011), appeal dismissed, 213 N.J.

47 (2013). The Court in Atalese has clarified the scope of this

requirement in the context of arbitration clauses contained in

consumer contracts. Atalese, supra, 219 N.J. at 442-43.

38 A-4398-13T4
 "An agreement to arbitrate, like any other contract, 'must

be the product of mutual assent, as determined under customary

principles of contract law.'" Id. at 442 (quoting NAACP, supra,

421 N.J. Super. at 424). The mutual agreement must contain a

provision waiving the right to pursue judicial determination of

the parties' respective rights and responsibilities. Ibid.

This is because "an average member of the public may not know —

without some explanatory comment — that arbitration is a

substitute for the right to have one's claim adjudicated in a

court of law." Ibid. Therefore, "'[a]n effective waiver

requires a party to have full knowledge of his [or her] legal

rights and intent to surrender those rights.'" Ibid. (quoting

Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169, 177 (2003)). The Court

emphasized:

Our jurisprudence has stressed that when a
contract contains a waiver of rights —
whether in an arbitration or other clause —
the waiver must be clearly and unmistakably
established. Thus, a clause depriving a
citizen of access to the courts should
clearly state its purpose. We have
repeatedly stated that [t]he point is to
assure that the parties know that in
electing arbitration as the exclusive
remedy, they are waiving their time-honored
right to sue.

[Atalese, supra, 219 N.J. at 444 (alteration
in original) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).]

39 A-4398-13T4
 We recite the entirety of the arbitration provision in the

Palisades policy, found in Part E:

If we and an insured do not agree whether
that person is legally entitled to recover
damages under this Part; or as to the amount
of damages; either party may make a written
demand for arbitration. In this event, each
party will select an arbitrator. The two
arbitrators will select a third. If they
cannot agree within 30 days, either may
request that selection be made by a judge of
a court having jurisdiction.

Each party will pay the expenses it incurs
and bear the expenses of the third
arbitrator equally.

Unless both parties agree otherwise,
arbitration will take place in the county in
which the named insured lives. Local rules
of law as to procedure and evidence will
apply. A decision agreed to by two of
the three arbitrators will be binding as to:

1. Whether the insured is legally
entitled to recover damages; and

2. The amount of damages.

The decision is binding only if the amount
does not exceed the minimum limit for
liability specified by the financial
responsibility law of New Jersey. If the
amount exceeds that limit, either party may
demand the right to a trial for all issues
of liability and damages. . . .

It is clear, the Palisades contract fails Atalese's basic

test. The language does not identify the insured's clear and

unmistakable waiver of the right to seek determination of

disputes in a judicial forum when choosing arbitration.

40 A-4398-13T4
Atalese, supra, 219 N.J. at 444. Accordingly, the arbitration

provision in the Palisades contract is unclear and ambiguous,

and, therefore, unenforceable. Id. at 448. See also

Dispenziere v. Kushner Cos., 438 N.J. Super. 11, 20 (App. Div.

2014) (invalidating an arbitration provision because it "failed

to provide [the] plaintiffs any notice that they were giving up

their right to seek relief in a judicial forum").

Despite the flaws of the Palisades arbitration clause,

however, Todisco's action is not saved. As noted, Todisco

produced no evidence he submitted a claim demanding payment for

diminution of value damages. His February 15, 2013 letter

contains no facts or monetary calculation. Further, Todisco did

not comply with the subsequent requests for proof of loss,

required by the claims provisions within Part F of his policy.

Therefore, his claims for breach of contract cannot be

sustained.

III.

In summary, we find no flaw with the trial judge's

determination to deny class certification or the procedure

employed in that examination. We conclude the CFA does not

apply to the dispute regarding payment or scope of coverage.

Finally, although we find the arbitration clause in the

Palisades policy is unenforceable, we nevertheless conclude

41 A-4398-13T4
dismissal of Todisco's complaint was warranted based upon his

noncompliance with the unambiguous claims procedure.

Affirmed, as modified.

42 A-4398-13T4