17:28-1.4

N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 is the so called "deemer" statute. The statute (text pated below) is notoriuosly difficult to parse. Cooper Hosp. University Medical Center v. Prudential Ins. Co., 378 N.J.Super. 510, 876 A.2d 335 (App. Div.2005) provides a helpful review. The "deemer" statute creates certain situations in which out-of-state policies must provide New Jersey PIP coverage. There are two situations (for simplicity, this lists starts with the second clause of the deemer statute):

An insurance company that transacts or is authorized to transact automobile or motor vehicle insurance business in New Jersey (either by itself or through a related corporation) must provide insurance complying with New Jersey minimums (for PIP, liability, etc.), whenever an out-of-state vehicle is operated in New Jersey.
Any insurer related to a company who writes any insurance business in New Jersey must provide NJ PIP benefits to a NJ resident who is not required to maintain PIP and is not eligible for PIP on another policy, whenever an out-of-state vehicle is operated in New Jersey.

However, note that Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 358 N.J.Super. 555 (App. Div. 2003) suggests that if an insurer is not authorized to transact any insurance in New Jersey it is not subject to "deemer" even if it is related another insurer that writes issurance (even automobile insurance) in New Jersey. See e.g. p. 571, where the court writes that "there is no case law support for GEICO's construction of the deemer statute which, if accepted, would result in a carrier who lacks any authorization to write insurance business in New Jersey being subject to the deemer statute. This is completely contrary to the legislative 'assumption' noted by the Supreme Court in Whitaker and every case that has previously interpreted the statute." We are at a loss to explain how the Deemer statute can be read in this manner.

Note that in order to qualify for point 1 above, the insurer or related insurer need only transact or be authorized to transact motor vehicle insurance. They need not be authorized to transact automobile insurance. Click here for a list of all insurers admitted in New Jersey and here for a list of insurers authorized to transact motor vehicle insurance in New Jersey (though it may be necessary to ascertain whether the particular insurer was authorized on the date of loss).

Also note that in Felix v. Richards, 241 N.J. 169 (2020) the New Jersey Supreme Court held, unsurprisingly, that an insurer required to provide liability coverage under deemer (i.e. under second deemer clause, described in the first bullet point above) must provide 15/30/5 liability coverage, even though there is an option for New Jersey residents to acquire a "basic" policy with 0/0/5 coverage (see discussion here).

Some other interesting questions regarding the deemer statute:

It is not clear whether an insurer who is only subject to point 2 above would be insulated from PIP recovery under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, particularly if the vehicle is not occupied by a NJ resident at the time of the accident. We are not aware of any case on point with this issue.
It is not clear whether a policy "deemed" to conform to New Jersey law is "deemed" to include any policy exclusions permitted under New Jersey law. In Country-Wide Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 336 N.J. Super. 484 (App.Div.) certif. den. 168 N.J. 293 (2001) discussed further here a New York policy was deemed to conform to New Jersey requriements, but was not able to invoke the "follow the family" exclusion. Based on this, Craig & Pomeroy, New Jersey Auto Insurance Law §3:2 write that "[t]he deemer statute does not require the incorporation of provisions which are permitted but not required but are almost universally a part of New Jersey auto insurance contracts." It is worth noting, however, that the discussion in Country-Wide does not include the question of whether the deemer statute intends to apply standard New Jersey exclusions (and in particular those exclusions explicitly permitted by statute) to those policies that must conform to New Jersey law.

Text of the Deemer Statute
§ 17:28-1.4. Mandatory coverage Any insurer authorized to transact or transacting automobile or motor vehicle insurance business in this State, or controlling or controlled by, or under common control by, or with, an insurer authorized to transact or transacting insurance business in this State, which sells a policy providing automobile or motor vehicle liability insurance coverage, or any similar coverage, in any other state or in any province of Canada, shall include in each policy coverage to satisfy at least the personal injury protection benefits coverage pursuant to section 4 of P.L.1972, c. 70 (C.39:6A-4) or section 19 of P.L.1983, c. 362 (C.17:28-1.3) for any New Jersey resident who is not required to maintain personal injury protection coverage pursuant to section 4 of P.L.1972, c. 70 (C.39:6A-4) or section 4 of P.L.1998, c. 21 (C. 39:6A-3.1) and who is not otherwise eligible for such benefits, whenever the automobile or motor vehicle insured under the policy is used or operated in this State. In addition, any insurer authorized to transact or transacting automobile or motor vehicle insurance business in this State, or controlling or controlled by, or under common control by, or with, an insurer authorized to transact or transacting automobile or motor vehicle insurance business in this State, which sells a policy providing automobile or motor vehicle liability insurance coverage, or any similar coverage, in any other state or in any province of Canada, shall include in each policy coverage to satisfy at least the liability insurance requirements of subsection a. of section 1 of P.L.1972, c. 197 (C.39:6B-1) or section 3 of P.L.1972, c. 70 (C.39:6A-3), the uninsured motorist insurance requirements of subsection a. of section 2 of P.L.1968, c. 385 (C.17:28-1.1), and personal injury protection benefits coverage pursuant to section 4 of P.L.1972, c. 70 (C.39:6A-4) or of section 19 of P.L.1983, c. 362 (C.17:28-1.3), whenever the automobile or motor vehicle insured under the policy is used or operated in this State. Any liability insurance policy subject to this section shall be construed as providing the coverage required herein, and any named insured, and any immediate family member as defined in section 14.1 of P.L.1983, c. 362 (C.39:6A-8.1), under that policy, shall be subject to the tort option specified in subsection a. of section 8 of P.L.1972, c. 70 (C.39:6A-8). Each insurer authorized to transact or transacting automobile or motor vehicle insurance business in this State and subject to the provisions of this section shall file and maintain with the Department of Banking and Insurance written certification of compliance with the provisions of this section. "Automobile" means an automobile as defined in section 2 of P.L.1972, c. 70 (C.39:6A-2).