The Court affirms the panel’s order shielding the redacted document from discovery because the PSA’s self-critical-analysis privilege prevents its disclosure. The Court also affirms the panel’s determination that, when reviewing a discovery dispute such as this, a trial court should not be determining whether a reportable event under the PSA has occurred. The Court reverses the judgment to the extent it ends defendants’ discovery obligation with respect to this dispute, finding that defendants have an unmet discovery duty under Rule 4:17-4(d) that must be addressed. Accordingly, the Court provides direction on how the court should have addressed, through New Jersey’s current discovery rules, the proper balancing of interests between the requesting party and the responding party here, and remands to the trial court.
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Sunday, July 22, 2018
THERESA WEAR, ET AL. VS. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY WOODBURY MEDICAL CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLP VS. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY (L-1583-13, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED) (A-5526-15T1
THERESA WEAR, ET AL. VS. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY WOODBURY MEDICAL CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLP VS. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY (L-1583-13, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED) (A-5526-15T1/A-0033-16T1)
In this appeal, the court held that it was premature to mandate the insurance carrier to provide a defense to an insured on an environmental claim where the unambiguous exclusion contained anti-concurrent and anti-sequential language. The proper remedy at that stage in the proceedings, given the uncertainty of coverage, was to convert the duty to defend to a duty to reimburse as in Grand Cove II. The court further held that it was premature to apply the Griggs analysis to a settlement reached between the insured and the claimants prior to a determination that the insurance carrier breached its duty to defend.
REGINAL LITTLE VS. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. (L-0800-01, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-0794-15T3)
In this class action against defendant Kia Motors America, Inc., (KMA) plaintiff class of 8455 Kia Sephia owners and lessees represented by Regina Little proved at a jury trial that the Sephia, model years 1997 through 2000, had a defective front brake system, which caused premature brake pad and rotor wear. Concluding that the defect amounted to a breach of express and implied warranties, and that all owners had suffered damage due to the defect, the jury awarded each member of the class $750 ($6.3 million total) in repair damages.
Determining for the first time post-trial that repair damages could not be awarded on a class-wide basis because they were dependent upon individual factors, the trial court granted KMA's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the repair damages award, decertified the class for purposes of damages, and ordered a new trial on repair damages only, to proceed by way of claim forms. With the advantage of recent case law unavailable to the trial judge, the court now reverses, reinstates the jury award and remands for determination of counsel fees.
IN THE MATTER OF BELLEVILLE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION AND BELLEVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION BELLEVILLE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION VS. BELLEVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION (PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND L-7237-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED) (A-5104-14T
This opinion involves two separate, but interrelated cases arising from the same core of operative facts. In the appeal filed by the local board of education under Docket Number A-5104-14, this court upholds the decision of the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) to assert its exclusive jurisdiction to decide complaints arising under the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (EERA), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 to -43, even when raised in the context of tenure charges. Applying the Supreme Court's holding in In re Local 195, IFPTE, 88 N.J. 393 (1982), this court also upholds the union's right to engage in good faith negotiations to ascertain the impact the installation of exposed cameras with both audio and video capabilities would have on the terms and conditions of employment for the employees.
In the separate, but related appeal filed by the union under Docket Number A-2956-15, this court holds the Law Division does not have jurisdiction under Rule4:67-6 to enforce an order entered by PERC. Adhering to the Supreme Court's holding in Galloway Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. Galloway Twp. Educ. Ass'n, 78 N.J. 25 (1978), this court holds that only PERC may file a motion before the Appellate Division to enforce its own order under the EERA. A prevailing party in a PERC proceeding only has the right to request that PERC enforce its own order.
Lucia Serico v. Robert M. Rothberg, M.D. (079041) (Essex County and Statewide)(A-69-16
The high-low agreement is a settlement subject to the rules of contract interpretation. Based on the expressed intent of the parties and the context of the agreement, the agreement set $1,000,000 as the maximum recovery. Therefore, Serico may not seek additional litigation expenses allowed by Rule 4:58. The judgment of the Appellate Division is accordingly affirmed.
Allstars Auto Group, Inc. v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (078991) (Statewide) (A-72/73/74/75/76/77/78/79-16; 078991)
Allstars Auto Group, Inc. v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (078991) (Statewide) (A-72/73/74/75/76/77/78/79-16; 078991)
If the reasons given by the dealers present a colorable dispute of facts or at least the presence of mitigating evidence, the Commission is required to provide an in-person hearing pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:10-20. An in-person hearing must be held prior to a license suspension or revocation when the target of the enforcement action requests it. Accordingly, the Court reverses the judgment of the Appellate Division and remands.
Maureen McDaid v. Aztec West Condominium Association (079325) (Bergen County and Statewide) (A-88-16; 079325)
Maureen McDaid v. Aztec West Condominium Association (079325) (Bergen County and Statewide) (A-88-16; 079325)
The dictates of Jerista apply to the facts presented here. The res ipsa inference of negligence is applicable because common experience instructs that elevator doors -- however complex their operation may be -- ordinarily should not strike a person entering or exiting an elevator in the absence of negligence. To warrant the inference, plaintiff had no obligation to exclude other possible causes that might explain the malfunctioning of the elevator doors or to show that defendants were on notice of some defect in the doors’ operation.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
EGG HARBOR CARE CENTER VS. PATRICIA SCHERALDI, ET AL. (L-0166-16, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-2956-16T4)
EGG HARBOR CARE CENTER VS. PATRICIA SCHERALDI, ET AL. (L-0166-16, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-2956-16T4)
After plaintiff Egg Harbor, a New Jersey nursing facility, commenced a collection action against various parties, the Californian defendant, Corey Pagano, moved to dismiss the case based upon a lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant Pagano had not lived in New Jersey in over three decades and had not set foot in our state in seventeen years. Pagano's only connection to the forum stems from his mother, New Jersey and Egg Harbor resident Patricia Scheraldi, as he served as the payee for her incurred obligations, contacted plaintiff Egg Harbor surrounding her health care, and attempted to obtain her Medicaid coverage. In accordance with the purposeful availment requirement necessary to support minimum contacts, we conclude that it is inappropriate for a nonresident defendant to be subjected to personal jurisdiction based upon contacts with the forum state that cannot be reasonably prevented by the defendant. Based upon Pagano's contacts with New Jersey, it violates the longstanding principles of minimum contacts and reasonableness outlined in Int'l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) to hale him into our courts to defend this action. We affirm and remand with directions to amend the order to dismiss the case without prejudice.
JOY DESANCTIS, ET AL. VS. BOROUGH OF BELMAR, ET AL. (L-3550-15, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-1074-16T3)
JOY DESANCTIS, ET AL. VS. BOROUGH OF BELMAR, ET AL. (L-3550-15, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-1074-16T3)
The mayor and council of the Borough of Belmar, in response to a protest petition seeking a referendum on an ordinance appropriating funds and authorizing the issuance of bonds and notes to construct a beach pavilion, passed a resolution to place the referendum on the ballot.
The court held a later-submitted permissive – not mandatory – interpretive statement of the ordinance was invalid because: 1) neither the borough administrator nor the borough attorney had authority to author and submit the interpretive statement to the county clerk without formal public approval of the mayor and counsel, and 2) the interpretive statement was misleading and contained extraneous language. The court also determined the interpretive statement's phraseology deprived plaintiffs of their substantive right of referendum protected by the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.
The court also upheld the trial judge's award of counsel fees and costs despite the absence of a retainer agreement between plaintiffs and counsel; and the judge's refusal to allocate fees and costs to beachgoers – not Belmar voters – as beneficiaries of plaintiffs' efforts.
MTK FOOD SERVICES, INC. D/B/A THE PALACE RESTAURANT VS. SIRIUS AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. (L-1227-12, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-1309-17T2)
The panel addresses whether New Jersey's six-year statute of limitations or Pennsylvania's two-year statute of limitations applies to a legal malpractice claim against a lawyer, who is licensed in both states and works in New Jersey, and his law firm, which has offices in both states. The legal services in question concerned a Pennsylvania lawsuit relating to a fire loss at a Pennsylvania restaurant. Applying the substantial-interest test for resolving statute-of-limitations conflicts, which our Supreme Court adopted in McCarrell v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 227 N.J. 569, 574 (2017), we reverse the trial court's decision, which applied New Jersey law.
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
MTK FOOD SERVICES, INC. D/B/A THE PALACE RESTAURANT VS. SIRIUS AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. (L-1227-12, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-1309-17T2)
The panel addresses whether New Jersey's six-year statute of limitations or Pennsylvania's two-year statute of limitations applies to a legal malpractice claim against a lawyer, who is licensed in both states and works in New Jersey, and his law firm, which has offices in both states. The legal services in question concerned a Pennsylvania lawsuit relating to a fire loss at a Pennsylvania restaurant. Applying the substantial-interest test for resolving statute-of-limitations conflicts, which our Supreme Court adopted in McCarrell v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 227 N.J. 569, 574 (2017), we reverse the trial court's decision, which applied New Jersey law.
Continental Insurance Company v. Honeywell International, Inc. (078152) (Morris County and Statewide) (A-21-16; 078152)
Continental Insurance Company v. Honeywell International, Inc. (078152) (Morris County and Statewide) (A-21-16; 078152)
New Jersey law on the allocation of liability among insurers applies in this matter, and the Court sets forth the pertinent choice-of-law principles to resolve this dispute over insurance coverage for numerous products-liability claims. Concerning the second question, on these facts, the Court also affirms the determination to follow the unavailability exception to the continuous-trigger method of allocation set forth in Owens-Illinois.
Mary Harz v. Borough of Spring Lake (078711) (Monmouth County and Statewide) (A-48-16; 078711)
The Borough’s zoning officer did not adhere to the precise statutory procedures for processing Harz’s appeal, and the Court does not take issue with Harz’s claims that the Borough could have responded in a more efficient way to her objections. In the end, however, Harz has not established that the Borough denied her the right to be heard before the Planning Board. She therefore cannot demonstrate that she was deprived of a substantive right protected by the Civil Rights Act.
Kean Federation of Teachers v. Ada Morell (078926) (Ocean County and Statewide) (A-84-16; 07892
There is no obligation to send Rice notices here, where the Board determined from the start to conduct its discussion about faculty reappointments in public session. Turning to the release of meeting minutes, the delay that occurred is unreasonable no matter the excuses advanced by the Board, but the Court modifies the Appellate Division’s holding requiring the Board to set a regular meeting schedule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)