Appellate Division, and Dickens, Know the 'Lamentable' Truth About Litigation
We commend the court for the concern it expressed to find “better ways to adjudicate such marathon and expensive disputes.”
January 15, 2018 at 01:00 PM
4 minute read
Charles Dickens, ca. 1867 and 1868
In his 19th century novel Bleak House, Dickens employed as a plot device Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, a case that dragged on and on and on until all of the proceeds from the disputed inheritance where absorbed in legal fees and costs so that, with nothing left to gain, the case was finally “over.”
Not as iconic, nor as extreme as Jarndyce, is the recent unpublished Appellate Division opinion of Palmer v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company, in which the court addressed the continual need to search for remedies that would keep cases from dragging on and on and on.
In Palmer, suit was brought by plaintiff for injuries resulting from an April 2000 automobile accident when her vehicle was struck by an automobile driven by Kovacs who had an automobile policy with a $300,000 liability limit. Kovacs' insurer, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJM), rejected the claim and, based on its view of the facts, refused to make an offer at any time throughout the life of the personal injury action against Kovacs.
Prior to the personal injury jury trial, the court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and thereafter in August 2004 the jury returned a damage verdict in the total sum of $460,000, which was appealed by the NJM attorney on a variety of grounds. In February 2006, the Appellate Division, in the first of two opinions on Kovacs'/NJMs' appeal, remanded the case to the trial judge for amplification of the factual record as to the monetary effect of an offer of judgment which had been filed by plaintiff before the personal injury trial. At the conclusion of the non-jury case on this issue, the trial judge made factual determinations that resulted in a second appeal.
The Appellate Division in its second opinion of May 2006 upheld the trial court's judgment, and Kovacs' petition for certification was then denied. The trial court entered an amended final judgment in November 2006.
The bad faith suit of Palmer v. NJM was then filed and, after extensive discovery, the issues were tried in a 2012 jury trial that resulted in a mistrial, after which the parties agreed to a non-jury trial to determine the bad faith issues. In August 2015, the trial judge issued a 46-page opinion with detailed credibility findings in which she held that plaintiff had failed to sustain her burden of proof on the bad faith claim against NJM. Palmer then filed a notice of appeal, which resulted in an affirmance of the trial court's decision in the unpublished Palmer opinion of December 2017, which is the subject of this editorial.
The issues in the underlying personal injury case and the subsequent bad faith case are not particularly complex or noteworthy. What is noteworthy, however, is the statement in the 2017 Palmer opinion: “That said, it is lamentable that it took nearly seventeen years—through no apparent fault of the parties or their counsel—for the successive litigation concerning this 2000 automobile accident to reach its final conclusion. Perhaps there are better ways to adjudicate such marathon and expensive disputes, but that is a topic the Supreme Court may or may not choose to examine prospectively.
The important point of the Palmer decision is that three appellate judges took the opportunity to focus on the process of litigation, which consumed such a lengthy period of time. Unlike British courts in the Jarndyce era, the judiciary of New Jersey has been keenly sensitive over the years to the necessity for streamlining litigation procedure in a way that will more quickly produce fair adjudication of claims raised in the course of litigation by modernization of the administration of justice, and produce cost savings to the parties.
We commend the court for the concern it expressed to find “better ways to adjudicate such marathon and expensive disputes.” We join in the court's concern and address our request to the Supreme Court's Civil Practice Committee to explore amendments to the rules in order to more effectively tighten the process of judicial involvement as cases stretch out over the years, winding their way to an ultimate disposition.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNJ Justices Provide A Sensible Decision on the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
4 minute readControversial Ethics Proceedings Against Mercer Judge Was Overreach. Stopping It Was the Right Thing to Do
3 minute readWe Applaud NJ Supreme Court's Balanced Rules for Reinstatement of Disbarred Attorneys
4 minute readAppellate Division Rulings Remind Us That, Despite Arbitration's Informal Nature, There Are Rules
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250