09-2-3622 Atlantic Ambulance Corp. v. Cullum, N.J. Super. App. Div. (Mayer, J.S.C.) (20 pp.) The court addressed an appeal from an order denying class certification on behalf of consumers who alleged that they were overcharged for ambulance services. The court held that consumers were not required to pay the bill for allegedly overpriced services to establish an ascertainable loss under the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). However, the court held that under the “learned professional” exception, ambulance service providers were not subject to CFA claims, because ambulance services are comprehensively regulated by a state agency. The court also held that plaintiffs could not maintain a breach of contract claim challenging the reasonableness of the rates charged, because the ambulance service's rate-setting was a policy issue to be addressed by the Legislature and agencies within the Executive branch of government. However, plaintiffs could pursue a claim for a refund of a $14 mileage fee for patients who admittedly were not transported to a hospital, because that did not implicate any rate-setting policy issues. (Approved for Publication)

15-4-3623 Wilmington Savings Fund Soc'y v. Zimmerman, N.J. Super. Ch. Div. (Pickering, J.S.C.) (13 pp.) This case decides whether a custodial receiver can be appointed by the court in a foreclosure action of a single-family residential dwelling, a matter not previously decided by New Jersey Courts. Plaintiff Wilmington Saving Fund Society FSB, as Trustee for Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust A (“plaintiff”), sought reconsideration of an order entered on November 29, 2016, denying plaintiff's motion to appoint a custodial receiver. In evaluating plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, the court evaluated five factors cited by plaintiff from Tross, Scott T., New Jersey Foreclosure Law & Practice, Volume I, Section 8-4:1 at 146 (2001), analyzed Kaufman v. 53 Duncan Investors, L.P., 368 N.J. Super. 501 (App. Div. 2004), the Fair Foreclosure Act N.J.S.A. 2A:50-30 to 73, and examined the terms of the mortgage. The court found that its decision to deny the appointment of a custodial receiver was not palpably incorrect, and therefore denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. (Approved for Publication)

17-8-3652 Halley v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 3rd Cir. (Scirica, J.) (42 pp.) [Filed June 29, 2017] Plaintiffs filed a class-action suit against defendants, the successors-in-interest of manufacturing plant owners and operators, alleging that those owners and operators caused chromium contamination of their homes. Plaintiffs asserted common-law tort and civil conspiracy claims for depreciation of their property values, but did not assert any other economic loss such as personal injury or medical monitoring. The district court certified a settlement-only class as to the claims against defendant Honeywell and approved a settlement fund, which included an award of costs and attorneys' fees. Maureen Chandra, a member of the settlement class, appealed from the district court's approval. Chandra argued that the district court erred in approving the settlement without a record establishing the presence and extent of contamination on class members' properties, in finding that class members could seek remediation through the New Jersey Spill act, in releasing “unknown and unforeseen” future claims, and in failing to consider the negative reaction of class members at a public meeting. The court affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement, noting that, despite the troubling amount of recovery for each class member, discovery produced little evidence supporting liability. The court held that the district court was not required to specifically identify the best possible recovery for the class, since it did not need to delay a fair and reasonable settlement to wait for expert report to establish present value. The court further held that it was not unreasonable for the settlement to release all claims, including future claims, particularly where the claims only concerned diminution of property value rather than personal injury or medical monitoring costs. However, the court remanded for reconsideration of the award of costs and attorneys' fees to untangle the costs and fees incurred against Honeywell and defendant PPG, which was not released. (Precedential)

09-2-3622 Atlantic Ambulance Corp. v. Cullum, N.J. Super. App. Div. (Mayer, J.S.C.) (20 pp.) The court addressed an appeal from an order denying class certification on behalf of consumers who alleged that they were overcharged for ambulance services. The court held that consumers were not required to pay the bill for allegedly overpriced services to establish an ascertainable loss under the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). However, the court held that under the “learned professional” exception, ambulance service providers were not subject to CFA claims, because ambulance services are comprehensively regulated by a state agency. The court also held that plaintiffs could not maintain a breach of contract claim challenging the reasonableness of the rates charged, because the ambulance service's rate-setting was a policy issue to be addressed by the Legislature and agencies within the Executive branch of government. However, plaintiffs could pursue a claim for a refund of a $14 mileage fee for patients who admittedly were not transported to a hospital, because that did not implicate any rate-setting policy issues. (Approved for Publication)