Kent Motor Cars, Inc. d/b/a Honda of Princeton v. Reynolds and Reynolds, Co. (A-102/103-09)
(1) Because the Dealerships seek trebling of counsel fees and damages that were already trebled in Wilson, allowing the Consumer Fraud Act claim to proceed following an inexcusable violation of Rule 4:5-1(b)(2) will result in substantial prejudice to Reynolds; and permitting the contribution claim will allow for fair compensation and prevent Reynolds from avoiding responsibility for an alleged regulatory violation. (2) Because the claims in Wilson did not relate to leasing or financing, they did not give rise to a duty to defend within the meaning of the Universal policy’s coverage for violations of “truth-in-lending or truth- in-leasing” laws.
