The court was careful to note that the statute applies the consequences of an opt-out election to the named insured, their spouse, resident relatives, and anyone else who would have had a right to claim PIP benefits under the policy. It reasoned that an ineffective election should carry the same scope. The Legislature, the court observed, chose to apply the unlimited coverage default to the entire policy, not to individual claimants. Had it intended a narrower result, it could have written the statute that way.
