No-Fault Act (NFA); PIP; Motion for reconsideration; Failure to pay a security bond

In this first-party PIP action, the court held that “it was within the range of principled outcomes for the trial court to deny plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.” It noted that dismissal is a proper remedy when a party fails to pay a security bond. Plaintiff argued “that the trial court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration was an abuse of discretion because he stated a legitimate claim for relief and provided an affidavit that stated he was unable to pay the security bond.” Plaintiff and defendant-Larivee were involved in an auto accident. “Plaintiff failed to provide discovery and responses to defendants until required by court order, and even then, failed to provide meaningful responses.” The court noted that the “trial court found plaintiff’s affidavit insufficient to grant his request to reconsider the security bond. It was not clearly erroneous for the trial court to find that plaintiff had failed to establish his financial inability to pay the security bond.” Also, plaintiff “failed to establish a legitimate claim.” The court held that on “balance, it is unlikely that plaintiff would succeed on his claim that the prescription was an allowable expense under the” NFA. The trial court’s factual finding as to “the weakness of plaintiff’s claim was not clearly erroneous.” Affirmed.