With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". purpose. Ibid. We conclude that this matter falls more under the umbrella of Knox, as affirmed by David, than of IF A A PIP carrier who has paid PIP benefits to an insured is entitled to reimbursement of those benefits from the insurance proceeds of the third-party tortfeasor, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1, even when the amount of the tortfeasor’s insurance is insufficient to make the insured whole. We reject plaintiffs argument that he is entitled to be made whole before Nationwide receives reimbursement of paid PIP benefits, distinguishing Nationwide’s statutory right of reimbursement from the tortfeasors’ liability carrier from those eases in which a claimant’s reimbursement rights are based on subrogation. See Cirelli v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 72 N.J. 380, 388, 371 A.2d 17 (1977) (<HOLDING>); see also McShane v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co., 375

A: holding that a rule requiring an excess carrier to drop down upon the insolvency of the primary carrier would impermissibly shift the risk of the primary carrier to the excess carrier and would require insurance companies to scrutinize one anothers financial stability before issuing secondary policies
B: holding if a workers compensation carrier denies liability for medical expenses of its insured the nofault carrier is bound promptly to pay benefits concerning such expenses under its policy
C: holding under njsa 396a9 the predecessor statute to njsa 396a91 that where a pip carrier was entitled to pursue statutory subrogation for reimbursement of paid pip benefits against the tortfeasors liability carrier such right of recovery was subject to the insureds right to be made whole
D: holding that carrier was entitled to intervene as of right where the states workers compensation law permitted subrogation of a compensation carrier
C.