United States: New Jersey Supreme Court Turns Back The Clock On Statute Of Limitations

Last Updated: February 3 2017
Article by Steven Boranian

We thought we understood statutes of limitations and choice-of-law rules in New Jersey. Until yesterday. That was when we read the New Jersey Supreme Court's opinion in McCarrell v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., No. 076524, 2017 WL 344449 (N.J. Jan. 24, 2017), which unhinged that state's statute of limitations and choice-of-law jurisprudence from its own precedent and placed statutes of limitations in a special class without much explanation. And the court did all of this for the stated purpose of preserving plaintiffs' claims and not "discriminating" against an out-of-state plaintiff's ability to sue a New Jersey company in New Jersey, after the suit would be barred in the plaintiff's home state.

How did we get here? Well, this is a New Jersey Accutane case, which tells you that it was contentious, as most things seem to be in that multi-county proceeding. Other than that, the facts in McCarrell are fairly typical—an out-of-state plaintiff (in this case a fellow from Alabama) who was prescribed a drug in his home state, used the drug in his home state, experienced alleged complications in his home state, and received medical treatment in his home state sued the drug's manufacturer where the company is incorporated—in this case, New Jersey. McCarrell, at *3.

The rub in McCarrell was that the plaintiff's claim was time barred under Alabama's statute of limitations, but not under New Jersey's statute of limitations, which includes a discovery rule. The choice of law therefore determined the outcome, which led the parties to contest the issue hotly in the trial court, the intermediate appellate court, and eventually the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Each court applied different rules, which is why this case is so interesting and why the Supreme Court's opinion is so odd. We have long understood that the choice of forum does not determine the applicable substantive law. Sure, the forum's procedural law applies, but the substantive law is determined by applying the forum state's choice-of-law rules.

When it comes to statutes of limitations, the issue has always been whether they are procedural or substantive. The majority of states now hold that statutes of limitations are substantive law. That unambiguously includes New Jersey, which in 1973 was among the earliest states to reject the notion that statutes of limitations are procedural. See Heavner v. Uniroyal, Inc., 305 A.2d 412,140-41 (N.J. 1973). That meant that New Jersey's courts would resolve conflicts among competing statutes of limitations by applying the "governmental interest" test, which was the rule in New Jersey at the time.

From 1973 to 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court shifted away from the "governmental interest" test and adopted the "most substantial relationship" test set forth in Sections 146, 145, and 6 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law (sometimes also called the "most significant relationship" test). A few different cases effected this change, but the definitive opinion seems to be P.V. ex rel. T.V. v. Camp Jaycee, 962 A.2d 453, 459-60 (N.J. 2008). In Camp Jaycee, the New Jersey Supreme Court adopted the Restatement's "most significant relationship" test and acknowledged that the substantive law of the place of injury will usually govern. See McCarrell, at *12 (discussing Camp Jaycee).

Now, back to McCarrell. For reasons that are not clear, the trial judge eschewed prevailing law, applied the "governmental interest" test, and determined that the New Jersey statute (which allowed the claim) applied and the Alabama statute (which barred the claim) did not. McCarrell, at *4. This order is difficult to understand. The trial judge relied on a 1996 case that applied the "governmental interest" test to statutes of limitations, but that case predated the Supreme Court's adoption of the "most substantial relationship" test in Camp Jaycee by 12 years. Id.

The Appellate Division reversed. Applying the "most substantial relationship" test, the Appellate Division held that Alabama's statute applied and cut off the claim. This was the correct result: All of the case-specific events in this case occurred in Alabama, and the Appellate Division's opinion followed New Jersey law to the tee: Are statutes of limitations procedural or substantive? We have known since Heavner that they are substantive law. What choice-of-law rules apply? We have known at least since Camp Jaycee that New Jersey applies the "most substantial relationship" test.

Easy, right? That's what we thought, but the New Jersey Supreme Court nevertheless reversed the Appellate Division and created a whole new rule under which New Jersey's statutes of limitations will presumptively apply to cases filed in New Jersey, unless there are "exceptional circumstances" under which New Jersey has "no substantial interest" in maintaining the claim. McCarrell, at *13.

With the stroke of a pen, the New Jersey Supreme Court has unmoored its own choice-of-law jurisprudence. It once was clear that statutes of limitations in New Jersey were substantive law. What are they now? Are they in some category between procedural and substantive? And what about the applicable rules? Statutes of limitations are clearly not procedural, so why does this one category of substantive law warrant a departure from the well-established "most substantial relationship" test?

The Supreme Court explained that it was applying Restatement Section 142 and that its prior opinions did not foreclose the application of a new rule to statutes of limitations. But the new rule still has problems. First, it is difficult to reconcile the new rule with the Court's own precedent. The Court held in Heavner that the forum would not determine the applicable statute of limitations. But now, the Court has held that New Jersey's statutes of limitations presumptively will apply to lawsuits in New Jersey. We understand that courts retain some discretion under the "exceptional circumstances" formulation, but even so, the new rule is awfully similar to a rule that the Supreme Court itself discredited in 1973.

Second, the new rule will encourage forum shopping. Take the McCarrell facts as an example. The Alabama legislature made the public policy decision that its statute of limitations for these kinds of claim would not have a discovery rule. An Alabama resident can now evade that policy choice by filing in New Jersey, and New Jersey can be sure that others are paying attention. This is not quite as bad as the California Supreme Court's recent resurrection of universal general jurisdiction under the guise of specific jurisdiction, thus opening California's courts to more litigants ( the worst drug/medical device decision of 2016 in our book). But it is in the same vein. It is also contrary to the concept of "borrowing," codified in many states, under which courts will apply the shorter of two statutes to prevent plaintiffs from evading statutes of limitations in this fashion. Bottom line, when faced with a choice between New Jersey's largest industry and litigation tourists, the court sided with the out-of-state litigants.

The Court attempted to justify its new rule as easy to apply and providing predictable/certain results. Id. at *14. We are not fans of the saying "this argument proves too much," but this argument proves too much. If we want easy and clear results, we can go back to the old days of lex loci delicti. That was easy to apply, yet virtually all states have rejected it, including New Jersey. Moreover, if the "most substantial relationship" test is workable for other forms of substantive law in New Jersey, then why is an easier-to-apply rule necessary for statutes of limitations.

The Court also emphasized that the new rule "places both this State's and out-of-state's citizens on an equal playing field." Id. Actually, it doesn't. It gives out-of-state plaintiffs an advantage by presumptively allowing them the benefit of New Jersey's discovery rule when suing in New Jersey, even where their home states have said that no such rule will apply. As for the Court's observation that the new rule "also benefits New Jersey companies" because it gives them "the protection of this State's statute of limitations against another state's longer limitations period" [Id. at *14], think about that for a second. If a plaintiff were still within his home state's "longer limitations period," why on Earth would he file a time-barred claim in New Jersey? He never would. The purported "benefit" to New Jersey companies is fiction.

What we fear is that "placing citizens on an equal playing field" is code for "providing an opportunity for more people to sue." The pro-litigation tone of the opinion is unmistakable. The Court promotes New Jersey's interest in deterring manufacturers from selling unsafe products and providing remedies for "not just the citizens of this State, but also the citizens of other states." But it simultaneously denigrates Alabama's interest in protecting its manufacturers "and others" from stale claims. Id. at *16. When it comes to protecting lawsuits, New Jersey's courts reach out to all. When it comes to Alabama's policy against stale claims, New Jersey companies are exempt—they are the "others" that the New Jersey Supreme Court has dismissed. The Court seems not to realize that these interests are all equal and compatible. Statutes of limitations place no substantial limitation on a diligent plaintiff's ability to seek a remedy, and it causes no injustice to enforce them.

New Jersey's laws on statutes of limitations and choice of law were fine. There is no evident reason why the Supreme Court changed them, other than sympathy for this plaintiff. If that is the case, then the old saying is true: Bad facts make bad law. It's early yet, but we have it straight from the horse's mouth that, for the second year running, a New Jersey Supreme Court decision will probably appear on our annual bottom ten list.

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions