Approved Opinions for the Week of July 10, 2017

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)