JODI SHAW, ET AL. VS. BRIAN SHAND, ET AL. (L-0408-16, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-5686-17T1)

JODI SHAW, ET AL. VS. BRIAN SHAND, ET AL. (L-0408-16, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-5686-17T1)

In this interlocutory appeal, the court considers whether a licensed home inspector home inspector is a "learned professional" and therefore excluded from liability under Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -210.

Considering the CFA's remedial purpose and applying well-established canons of statutory construction, the court concludes that the judicially created learned professional exception must be narrowly construed to exempt liability only as to those professionals who have historically been recognized as "learned" based on the requirement of extensive learning or erudition. To the extent this court's prior decisions, including Plemmons v. Blue Chip Insurance Services, Inc., 387 N.J. Super. 551 (App. Div. 2006), have applied the learned professional exception to "semi-professionals" who are regulated by a separate regulatory scheme, we are constrained to depart from that reasoning as inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management Corp. of America, 150 N.J. 255 (1997). As the Court explicitly held in Lemelledo, the existence of a separate regulatory scheme will "overcome the presumption that the CFA applies to a covered activity" only when "a direct and unavoidable conflict exists between application of the CFA and application of the other regulatory scheme or schemes." 150 N.J. at 270. The court's decision today comports with the amicus curiae Attorney General's persuasive interpretation of the CFA and addresses the Attorney General's policy concern that an expansive interpretation of the learned professional exception unduly curtails the authority of the Attorney General and the Division of Consumer Affairs to protect New Jersey consumers and limits the redress available to private litigants.

Accordingly, because home inspectors are not historically recognized learned professionals and because no direct and unavoidable conflict exists between the CFA and the regulations governing home inspectors, the court concludes that the CFA applies to the activities of licensed home inspectors and reverses the trial court's summary judgment dismissal of the CFA claim against defendants.

Judge Sabatino filed a concurring opinion.

KEVIN HARVARD V. STATE OF NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY, ATLANTIC-CAPE MAY VICINAGE (A-5091-15T1)

KEVIN HARVARD V. STATE OF NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY, ATLANTIC-CAPE MAY VICINAGE (A-5091-15T1)

This case stemmed from the termination of the appointment of a Special Civil Part Officer (SCPO) following the discovery of numerous violations of AOC directives. The SCPO filed a Law Division complaint against the State, the Judiciary, and the Atlantic/Cape May vicinage alleging violations of CEPA and related claims. We affirm the summary judgment dismissal of plaintiffs' claims since plaintiff was not a Vicinage employee for CEPA purposes and plaintiff failed to establish a whistle-blower claim under CEPA. This opinion was originally issued in January 2018 as an unpublished opinion. We now publish this opinion, following a request from the Committee of the Special Civil Part Supervising Judges, which submitted "that the publication of this opinion will provide important precedent to our records, practitioners and the public with regard to [SCPOs] and their status as independent contractors."

MONMOUTH MEDICAL CENTER VS. STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY SAINT BARNABAS MEDICAL CENTER VS. STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY (L-2482-17 AND L-0126-18, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (A-3004-17T1/A-4208-17T1)

MONMOUTH MEDICAL CENTER VS. STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY SAINT BARNABAS MEDICAL CENTER VS. STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY (L-2482-17 AND L-0126-18, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (A-3004-17T1/A-4208-17T1)

In these back-to-back appeals, State Farm Indemnity Company (State Farm) appeals from two trial court orders that vacated awards entered by dispute resolution professionals (DRP) pursuant to the Alternative Procedure for Dispute Resolution Act (APDRA), N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-1 to -30, in connection with payment for out-patient hospital services provided to two claimants involved in separate automobile accidents. In each appeal, the trial court entered a modified judgment against State Farm, finding that the DRP committed prejudicial error. The court determined that the trial court properly exercised the authority granted to it under the APDRA, adhered to the statutory grounds in vacating the DRPs' awards, and provided rational explanations of how the respective DRPs committed prejudicial error within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-13(c)(5). Because there was no principled reason for the exercise of the court's supervisory jurisdiction, or any unusual circumstances where public policy required the court's intervention, the court adhered to the strictures of N.J.S.A.2A:23A-18(b), barring further appeals or reviews of trial court judgments, and dismissed the appeals.

SUSAN LUCAS VS. 1 ON 1 TITLE AGENCY, INC., ET AL. SUSAN LUCAS VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL. (L-3144-13 AND L-0701-14, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-2217-16T2)

SUSAN LUCAS VS. 1 ON 1 TITLE AGENCY, INC., ET AL. SUSAN LUCAS VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL. (L-3144-13 AND L-0701-14, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-2217-16T2)

Appellant is a law firm who successfully represented plaintiff in the prosecution of a legal malpractice action. Appellant sought counsel fees from plaintiff that exceeded the amount of consequential damages proximately caused by the attorney/tortfeasor. Saffer v. Willoughby, 143 N.J. 256, 272 (1996). When plaintiff and appellant were unable to agree, the trial judge who presided over the legal malpractice action sua sponte decided to adjudicate the fee dispute over appellant's objection. This court reverses and holds the trial judge did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this counsel fee dispute. Appellant was not a party in the case, had not filed a collection action against plaintiff, nor sought relief under N.J.S.A. 2A:13-5, commonly known as the Attorney's Lien Act.

NOEMI ESCOBAR VS. DAVID A. MAZIE, ET AL. (L-8329-17, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-2509-18T1)

NOEMI ESCOBAR VS. DAVID A. MAZIE, ET AL. (L-8329-17, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-2509-18T1)

The court reverses an order entered under RPC 3.7 barring a lawyer and every lawyer in his firm, save one, from representing themselves at deposition and trial in defense of a malpractice action brought against them by a former client. The court follows established federal authority in this circuit holding RPC 3.7 is a rule addressed only to a lawyer acting as an advocate at trial. Thus there is no ethical prohibition against a lawyer acting as an advocate in a deposition in a case in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness at trial.

The court further holds that RPC 3.7 does not apply to a lawyer who is a party in the case. As lawyers have the same rights as other individuals appearing in our courts, they may appear in their own behalf at trial even if likely to be a necessary witness. Law firms, likewise, are to be treated as other entities, and thus must appear through counsel to the same extent. RPC 3.7 is fully applicable to lawyers appearing on the firm's behalf, even if the lawyer is employed by the firm. Imputed disqualification is limited as set forth in RPC 3.7.

J.H. and A.R. v. R & M Tagliareni, LLC (081128)(Hudson County and Statewide) (A-6-18;

J.H. and A.R. v. R & M Tagliareni, LLC (081128)(Hudson County and Statewide) (A-6-18; 081128)

The Court is unpersuaded that N.J.A.C. 5:10-14.3(d) imposes any regulatory duty on landlords to cover in-unit radiators with insulating material or a cover. The regulatory scheme provides no evidence of an express or implied intent to include radiators as part of the “heating system” required to be insulated. Having concluded that no such regulatory duty has been imposed, and because the tenants in this case maintained exclusive control over the heat emanating from the radiator, the Court declines to impose on landlords a new common law duty to cover all in-unit radiators.

US Masters Residential Property (USA) Fund v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (081137)(Statewide) (A-78-17; 080562)

US Masters Residential Property (USA) Fund v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (081137)(Statewide) (A-78-17; 080562)

Flaws in the substantive reasoning of the arbitration decision as well as procedural fairness considerations undermine confidence in the outcome of this arbitration enough to persuade the Court, in the interest of fairness, to require that a new arbitration be conducted.