Recently, the Jurisdictional Exclusion of “filed in the wrong forum” has been replaced with “filed under wrong coverage.” Why the change?
This change better reflects the TRS design since TRS supports coverage-driven cases (collision/OTC, PIP, Med Pay, etc.) to track the dispute to the correct forum (versus forum-driven cases [the design used in our legacy system]). In arbitration, the coverage under which the first-party claim was paid drives the forum to which it tracks. For example, if a car accident between two or more potentially liable signatory parties results in damage to a building (assuming all parties are signatory to the Property Forum), the first-party claim for building damage belongs in our Property Forum, even though it was caused by an auto accident. In arbitration, the coverage under which the first-party claim was paid drives the forum to which it tracks; the coverage-based design of TRS has helped us reduce the number of improperly filed cases.
We recognize that we will occasionally see cases in which the Recovering Party may not select the correct coverage under which its claim was paid. In this instance, the Adverse Party can raise a Jurisdictional Exclusion of “filed under wrong coverage” to remove the case from AF’s jurisdiction. The Recovering Party can then refile the case under the correct coverage.