This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Peiffer (P) was injured in an automobile accident. P was insured by D that included coverage for PIP benefits in accordance with the No-Fault Act. D was responsible for payment of up to $50,000 for medical and rehabilitation treatments that were reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the automobile accident. P began receiving extensive treatment from multiple health care providers. They all deemed P’s treatment necessary. D instructed P to submit to several independent medical examinations. The chiropractor indicated that P should be weaned from chiropractic treatment and massage therapy because they were unnecessary. A psychiatrist/neurologist stated that P's psychiatric therapy was no longer reasonably related to the accident. An orthopedic spine surgeon also found that P had reached maximum medical improvement. D refused to pay for further treatment other than pool therapy. P sued D for breach of contract for failure to pay PIP benefits, and for the tort of bad faith breach of an insurance contract. During her testimony, P admitted that she failed to inform the examining physicians that she received substantial chiropractic treatment before the accident. D presented experts to testify that P's subjective complaints greatly outweighed her physical injuries. The district court gave the jury a 'thin skull' instruction per P's request and D's objection. The jury awarded P $ 10,068 for breach of contract and $10,000 for bad faith breach of an insurance contract. The court of appeals rejected D's argument and affirmed the holding of the district court. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.