In Rutgers Casualty Ins. Co. v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 299 N.J. Super. 249, 690 A.2d 1074 (App.Div., 1997), aff'd, 153 N.J. 205, 707 A.2d 1350 (1998), the Supreme Court affirmed the decision that under the "follow-the-family" provision in the policy issued by Ohio to its insureds it was rendered not "liable" for the payment of PIP benefits to anyone other than its named insured and the named insured's otherwise uninsured resident relatives because the injured persons there had PIP coverage under their own policies. In so doing, the Court noted our observation that the "follow-the-family" provision "effectuates" the legislative goal of "transactional efficiency" by permitting insurance companies to avoid the "cumbersome and uneconomic shifting of dollars" that results from contribution claims. See Rutgers, supra, 153 N.J. at 209, 707 A.2d 1350. The Court further remarked that the explanatory note to the recently enacted amendment to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-7, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-7b(3) states that "the bill eliminates PIP contribution." Rutgers, supra, 153 N.J. at 210, 707 A.2d 1350.