IN RE ADOPTION OF N.J.A.C. 17:2-3.8 AND 17:2-3.13 (DIVISION OF PENSIONS AND BENEFITS)

205 A.3d 237, 458 N.J. Super. 326
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedFebruary 21, 2019
DocketA-4327-17T4
StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.3d 237 (IN RE ADOPTION OF N.J.A.C. 17:2-3.8 AND 17:2-3.13 (DIVISION OF PENSIONS AND BENEFITS)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
IN RE ADOPTION OF N.J.A.C. 17:2-3.8 AND 17:2-3.13 (DIVISION OF PENSIONS AND BENEFITS), 205 A.3d 237, 458 N.J. Super. 326 (N.J. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-4327-17T4

APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

February 21, 2019 IN RE ADOPTION OF N.J.A.C. 17:2-3.8 AND 17:2-3.13. APPELLATE DIVISION _____________________________

Argued January 7, 2019 – Decided February 21, 2019

Before Judges Messano, Fasciale and Gooden Brown.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of the Treasury, Division of Pensions and Benefits.

Richard A. Friedman argued the cause for appellant New Jersey Education Association (Zazzali, Fagella, Nowak, Kleinbaum & Friedman, attorneys; Richard A. Friedman, of counsel and on the brief; Kaitlyn E. Dunphy, on the briefs).

Amy Chung, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Board of Trustees, Public Employees' Retirement System (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Amy Chung, on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FASCIALE, J.A.D.

This appeal focuses on two amended regulations (the two regulations)

promulgated by the Board of Trustees (the Board), Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS): N.J.A.C. 17:2-3.8(b) (implementing N.J.S.A.

43:15A-93 by clarifying the effective date for converted individual insurance

policies); and N.J.A.C. 17:2-3.13 (implementing N.J.S.A. 43:15A-50 by

addressing benefits payable when a member dies with a retirement application

pending). The category of PERS members primarily affected by this appeal

are those who exercised a "conversion privilege," died while their retirement

applications were pending, and whose beneficiaries chose "retired" benefits,

not "active" benefits. The New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) argues

that the two regulations conflict with the enabling statutes they purport to

implement, and that the Board therefore exceeded its statutory authority and

acted arbitrarily. 1

The two regulations maintain the longstanding practice that beneficiaries

of PERS members may generally receive a "retired" benefit (from the

member's retirement allowance) or an "active" benefit (from the member's life

1 The Department of the Treasury, Division of Pension and Benefits (Division), administers New Jersey's public retirement systems, including PERS. In general, the Division's regulations govern the administration of the State retirement systems. N.J.A.C. 17:1. The Division also promulgates PERS regulations under N.J.A.C. 17:2. Although the Division administers PERS, it is the Board that has "general responsibility for the proper operation of [PERS]" and must "annually establish rules and regulations for the administration and transaction of the [B]oard's and committees' business." N.J.S.A. 43:15A-17(a)(1). Therefore, NJEA's appeal is from the Board's amendments to the two regulations.

A-4327-17T4 2 insurance), but not both. For years, PERS members have had the right to

convert a group insurance policy to an individual policy. This "conversion

privilege" allows members who terminate employment to maintain adequate

life insurance.

This appeal requires us to decide two underlying issues. First, may a

beneficiary make a claim against the converted individual insurance policy

when the member merely applied for that insurance protection and submitted a

premium check to protect the "conversion privilege," died while a retirement

application was pending, and whose beneficiary opted for a statutory "retired"

benefit? Second, under the enabling statutes, is that beneficiary entitled to

receive both the member's life insurance and retirement allowance

simultaneously? The answers to these questions inform our conclusion that the

two regulations are valid.

As to the first question, the answer is no. If a PERS member whose

retirement application is pending and whose beneficiary has chosen the

"retired" benefit exercises the "conversion privilege," and then dies during the

statutory thirty-one-day grace period applicable to the group insurance policy,

the beneficiary's life insurance claim is against the member's group policy.

That is so because the converted individual insurance policy will not become

effective until after expiration of the grace period for the group policy. By

A-4327-17T4 3 statute, "the amount of life insurance which [a beneficiary] would have been

entitled to . . . under the individual policy shall be payable as a claim under the

group policy, whether or not application for the individual policy or the

payment of the first premium therefor had been made" during the grace period.

N.J.S.A. 17B:27-72(k).

The answer to the second question is also no. Generally, a beneficiary

cannot receive the member's retirement allowance in addition to the death

benefit, which of course has been the law for years. But payment on a life

insurance claim for a member on "active" status, in accordance with

longstanding precedent, entitles the beneficiary to reimbursement of the

member's pension contributions plus interest on those contributions .

Applying the presumption of validity and reasonableness ordinarily

accorded to administrative regulations, and giving the Board wide latitude to

achieve its legislatively assigned tasks, we hold that the two regulations – both

effective in January 2018 – comport with the overall framework, objectives,

and terms of the enabling statutes and established precedent. Any other result

would require that we re-write the legislative framework of the enabling

statutes and ignore precedent, which we will not do. We therefore decline to

invalidate the two regulations, and affirm.

A-4327-17T4 4 I.

A familiar standard of review guides our analysis. "Administrative

regulations are entitled to a presumption of validity and reasonableness." In re

Adoption of N.J.A.C. 17:1-6.4, 454 N.J. Super. 386, 395 (App. Div. 2018).

The burden of overcoming that presumption is on the party challenging the

agency action. Ibid. Here, NJEA has the burden.

Overturning an administrative determination occurs only if it was

"arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or violated express or implied legislative

policies." Ibid. "Administrative agencies have wide discretion to decide how

best to approach legislatively assigned administrative tasks." Ibid. We

liberally construe "the grant of authority to an administrative agency . . . to

enable the agency to accomplish its statutory responsibilities." Ibid.

Consequently, we "readily imply such incidental powers as are necessary to

effectuate fully the legislative intent." Ibid. Administrative regulations must

nevertheless be "within the fair contemplation of the delegation of the enabling

statute." Ibid. The substantial deference we ordinarily apply to an agency

regulation is available if it is "consistent with the governing statutes' terms and

objectives." Ibid.

In determining whether an agency possessed the requisite authority to

issue a regulation, courts strive "to determine the intent of the Legislature."

A-4327-17T4 5 Id. at 396. To that end, we begin with the statutory language, which is the best

indicator of legislative intent. DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005).

Although we will analyze the text of two enabling statutes (N.J.S.A. 43:15A-

93 and N.J.S.A.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Agricultural, Aquacultural
981 A.2d 99 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2009)
DiProspero v. Penn
874 A.2d 1039 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2005)
Matturri v. Board of Trustees of the Judicial Retirement System
802 A.2d 496 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2002)
Grimes v. City of East Orange
672 A.2d 239 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1996)
In re N.J.A.C. 17:1-6.4, 17:1-7.5 & 17:1-7.10
185 A.3d 928 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2018)
New Jersey Education Ass'n v. Board of Trustees
743 A.2d 859 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2000)
Port Liberte II Condominium Ass'n v. New Liberty Residential Urban Renewal Co.
86 A.3d 730 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
205 A.3d 237, 458 N.J. Super. 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-adoption-of-njac-172-38-and-172-313-division-of-pensions-and-njsuperctappdiv-2019.