To schedule a confidential consultation, email us at VercammenAppointments@NJlaws.com, call or

visit Website www.njlaws.com

Kenneth Vercammen was included in the 2015 “Super Lawyers” list published by Thomson Reuters.

Kenneth Vercammen is a Middlesex County trial attorney who has published 130 articles in national and New Jersey publications on litigation topics. He was awarded the NJ State State Bar Municipal Court Practitioner of the Year. He lectures for the Bar and handles litigation matters. He is Past Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Committee,GP on Personal Injury and was a speaker at the ABA Annual Meeting attended by 10,000 attorneys and professionals. To schedule a confidential consultation, email us at VercammenAppointments@NJlaws.com, call or

visit Website www.njlaws.com

Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.

2053 Woodbridge Avenue - Edison, NJ 08817

(732) 572-0500

Sunday, May 10, 2015

PATRICIA C. MYSKA, DAX MORALES, KATHERINE K. WAGNER AND JOHN B. OTDISCO VS. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY, AAA MID-ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY AND PALISADES INSURANCE COMPANY A-4398-13T4


PATRICIA C. MYSKA, DAX MORALES, KATHERINE K. WAGNER
          AND JOHN B. OTDISCO VS. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS
          INSURANCE COMPANY, AAA MID-ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY
          OF NEW JERSEY AND PALISADES INSURANCE COMPANY
          A-4398-13T4/A-0275-14T4 (CONSOLIDATED)
On remand from the Supreme Court, we consider these appeals, calendared back-to-back and consolidated for purposes of our opinion, reviewing orders dismissing plaintiffs' putative class action complaints, attacking defendant-insurers alleged denial of diminution in value damages, as a covered component of the underinsured and uninsured motorist provisions in their respective automobile insurance policies. Plaintiffs argue striking class allegations prior to discovery was premature and unprecedented. Although we agree courts must liberally view class allegations, allowing reasonable inferences to be gleaned from the complaint's allegations, and must also search for a possible basis for class relief so as to avoid premature dismissals, Lee v. Carter-Reed Co., 203 N.J. 496, 505-06, 518 (2010), we do not abide a view that precludes dismissal of a complaint at the incipient stage of litigation, upon a determination claims do not properly lend themselves to class certification, when made following the required searching analysis. See Riley v. New Rapids Carpet Center, 61 N.J. 218, 225 (1972) (holding "a class action should lie unless it is clearly infeasible"). We flatly reject plaintiffs' urging to impose a bright-line rule prohibiting examination of the propriety of class certification until discovery is undertaken.
Our review also examines whether plaintiffs allege cognizable claims under the Consumer Fraud Act and whether the arbitration clause in one policy withstands scrutiny, under Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014), petition for certiorari filed Jan. 21, 2015. 

THE PITNEY BOWES BANK, INC. VS. ABC CAGING FULFILLMENT A-2287-13T3

THE PITNEY BOWES BANK, INC. VS. ABC CAGING FULFILLMENT
          A-2287-13T3
In this case we consider the effect of N.J.S.A. 34:11-31 and -32 on a levy of a debtor's bank account, which the debtor claimed was used to pay employees' wages. As the statutes hold that wages owing at the time of the levy must be paid before the sheriff disburses funds to the creditor, we hold that the wages owed at the time of the levy were exempt funds. On the other hand, we hold that wages that became due after the date of the
page1image20440 page1image20600 page1image20760 page1image20920 page1image21080

levy, but before the levied funds were turned over to the creditor, were not exempt under N.J.S.A. 34:11-32. 

Robert Occhifinto v. Olivo Construction Company


Robert Occhifinto v. Olivo Construction Company (A-77-
          13; 073174)
          Occhifinto was a successful claimant entitled to
          counsel fees under Rule 4:42-9(a)(6).  In the
          declaratory judgment action, the trial court properly
          concluded that Mercer would be required to indemnify
          Keppler in the event Keppler was found liable, and
          therefore determined that the liability action alleged
          claims that, if proven, would fall within the coverage
          of Keppler’s liability policy with Mercer.  That
          determination had the practical effect of enforcing
          Mercer’s duty to defend.  By forcing Mercer to defend
          the liability action, Occhifinto obtained a favorable
          adjudication on the merits on a coverage question as
          the result of the expenditure of counsel fees,
          rendering Occhifinto a successful claimant under Rule
          4:42-9(a)(6).

Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association v. Board of Education of the Bridgewater-Raritan School District


Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association v. Board of
          Education of the Bridgewater-Raritan School District
          (A-85-13; 073873)
          N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.1 requires a board of education to
          give an employee notice of his or her designation as a
          “replacement.”  With respect to the claim of Tamara
          Manzur, a genuine issue of material fact exists
          regarding whether she was provided such notice as to
          her status during the 2007-08 school year.

388 Route 22 Readington Realty Holdings, LLC v. Township of Readington


388 Route 22 Readington Realty Holdings, LLC v.
          Township of Readington (A-63-13; 073322)
          A blanket policy of not recapturing unused sewer
          capacity is the functional equivalent of a moratorium
          on development.  The Court approves of the trial
          court’s approach, requiring the Township both to
          undertake a detailed analysis of the unused capacity
          in the hands of private parties and to explain whether
          any of that capacity can be recalled.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

I/M/O TOWN OF HARRISON AND FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,LODGE NO. 116

I/M/O TOWN OF HARRISON AND FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,LODGE NO. 116;I/M/O VERNON TOWNSHIP PBA LOCAL 285 CONTRACT;I/M/O BOROUGH OF RAMSEY AND PBA LOCAL NO. 155;I/M/O TOWNSHIP OF WOODBRIDGE AND PBA LOCAL 38;I/M/O CITY OF LINDEN AND FMBA LOCAL NO. 234;I/M/O TOWN OF HARRISON AND FMBA LOCAL NO. 22;I/M/O TOWN OF
page1image20456 page1image20616 page1image20776 page1image20936 page1image21096 page1image21256

HARRISON AND PBA LOCAL NO. 22;I/M/O TOWN OF HARRISON AND FMBA LOCAL NO. 22;I/M/O CITY OF LINDEN AND FMBA LOCAL 234 A-0083-11T2/A-0099-11T2/A-0123-11T2/A-0124-11T2/A- 0157-11T2/A-0158-11T2/A-0159-11T2/A-0195-11T2/A-0208- 11T2(CONSOLIDATED)
page2image2328 page2image2488 page2image2648
Five
officers and firefighters employed by them have mounted a collective legal challenge to the Acting Director of the Division of Pensions and Benefits' decision to refuse to implement the final determination of the Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen's Retirement System, which found certain senior officer and longevity pay provisions in the collective bargaining agreements entered into by appellants were creditable compensation for pension purposes under N.J.S.A. 43:16A- 1(26)(a).

The singular legal question before us is whether the Acting Director of the Division of Pensions and Benefits has the legal authority to refuse to implement a final decision of the PFRS Board of Trustees because the Acting Director has independently concluded that the decision of the PFRS Board of Trustees is legally incorrect. We hold the action of the Acting Director to refuse to implement a final determination made by the PFRS Board of Trustees concerning what constitutes creditable compensation for pension purposes under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-1(26)(a) in these cases was ultra vires, without legal force or effect. Final determinations of the PFRS Board of Trustees are reviewable only by this court. N.J.A.C. 17:4-1.7(e); R. 2:2-3(a)(2).
     Judge Ashrafi has filed a separate concurrence.

ENVIROFINANCE GROUP, LLC AND EARTHMARK NJ KANE MITIGATION, LLC VS. ENVIRONMENTAL BARRIER COMPANY, LLC A-2475-12T4/

ENVIROFINANCE GROUP, LLC AND EARTHMARK NJ KANE
          MITIGATION, LLC VS. ENVIRONMENTAL BARRIER COMPANY, LLC
          A-2475-12T4/A-6202-12T3(CONSOLIDATED)
In this complex litigation, plaintiff EFG, provided construction financing to plaintiff Earthmark, to develop an
municipalities and the unions that represent police
page2image16200 page2image16360
environmental
Meadowlands
contractor,
leasehold interest in the project when payment was not made. Defendant later moved for a default judgment against Earthmark and EFG attempted to oppose the motion. We concluded, as did the trial judge, EFG's secured creditor status was not a sufficient financial stake in the outcome to confer standing to

mitigation bank on wetlands owned by the Conservation Trust. Defendant, the primary filed construction liens against Earthmark's

challenge the nature and amount of obligations between Earthmark and defendant. EFG had the opportunity but chose not to invoke provisions of its financing agreements allowing it to assume Earthmark's role in the project.
Also examined were respective contract and equitable relief claims, including whether the construction liens were barred by the public works exception of N.J.S.A. 2A:44A-5(b). We upheld the liens, determining they did not attach to the public property, but to Earthmark's private leasehold interest.