not require it to do so. In other words, had plaintiff opted to file its claim for PIP costs initially in the trial court, nothing in the contract language would have forbidden the suit from going forward. The insurance contract goes on to state that: PIP dispute resolution shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in N.J.A.C. 11:3-5, including any amendments. The final determination made by the dispute resolution professional shall be binding upon the parties, but subject to vacation, modification or correction by the Superior Court in an action filed pursuant to N.J.S.A 2A:23A-13 for review of the award. Plaintiff, as the assignee of this contract, is bound by these terms. See James Talcott, Inc. v. H. Corenzwit & Co., 76 N.J. 305, 309-10, 387 A.2d 350 (1978) (<HOLDING>). The APDRA, N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-18(b), clearly
holding that rights under vienna convention are not the equivalent of fundamental rights such as the right to counsel holding that the assignor of a patent retained substantial rights in the patent and must be added as an indispensable party holding that state rights are equivalent to federal rights in this area holding that an assignees rights are limited to the rights of the assignor and are subject to the equities and defenses that could have been asserted against the assignor before assignment holding that appellate jurisdiction over final orders of removal are limited to claims that have been exhausted before the bia