That act does bar most non-economic damage claims by holders of the cheaper polices, but it does permit them when the policyholder suffers, among other things, permanent injury other than scarring or disfigurement.

However, the Supreme Court found that AICRA did not include a requirement that was previously part of the law, which required a permanent injury to have a serious life impact that met one of nine legal categories meeting a so-called "verbal" threshold.

Christina DiProspero, the 21-year-old victim in the case at issue, sustained back and neck pain for which she had treatment for two years until her carrier stop paying for medical and chiropractic visits. In a decision overturned by the high court, the trial court threw out her suit for non-economic damages, finding she had not shown her injuries had a serious impact on her life.

The high court said that in its reading of the act, it consciously chose not to incorporate a serious life impact standard.

Mr. Stokes said insurers have been encouraged by the fact that legislators from both sides of the aisle had introduced measures to restore a serious impact standard.

He would not say what the cost of the contracts involved in the campaign would amount to, but in 2003 an industry coalition, pushing the omnibus auto insurance law reform bill that passed that year, hired Winning Strategies and the Princeton-based Public Affairs Group lobbying concern and paid out $3.5 million.

Mr. Stokes said all four of the auto injury bills were dropped in the hopper before the legislature's June 30 recess and that his organization is studying them and is hopeful that one of the measures they support can be passed if the legislature decides to return in October.

"We're going to be very active," he promised.

His group said in June, after the decision, that a 2003 independent study had concluded that allowing damages for minor injuries would cost the typical two-car family choosing the limitation lawsuit option an additional $300 per year.