United States: An Assessment Of The Real World Implications Of The New Jersey Supreme Court's Mccarrell Decision

January 30, 2017 - On January 24, 2017, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in McCarrell v. Hoffmann-La Roche, addressed New Jersey's choice-of-law rules with regard to the selection of the statute of limitations in tort actions, including specifically taking on how New Jersey trial courts should choose a statute of limitations in product suits brought by out-of-state plaintiffs against New Jersey corporations. No. 076524, 2017 WL 344449 (N.J. Jan. 24, 2017). The decision is of critical importance to the pharmaceutical industry, as so many of its members are domiciled in New Jersey and thus may be sued with relative ease in its state courts. It is also important to other companies concerned with being sued in New Jersey's courts, especially in the robust mass tort system where plaintiffs' attorneys continue to bring new cases.

To be clear, McCarrell, from our perspective, neither leads to a good outcome nor is well-reasoned. It has the effect of reinstating a $25 million verdict in a single plaintiff case that would, to any first-year law student employing basic concepts of procedural/substantive law distinctions, seem obviously time-barred. The plaintiff in McCarrell was an Alabama resident who lived in, ingested the medicine (Accutane) in, and suffered his alleged injury in Alabama. Plaintiff's claim against the manufacturer was obviously time-barred under Alabama's relevant two-year statute of limitations, a statute that does not have any tolling provision.

Undeterred, plaintiff filed in New Jersey and argued that his claim was timely under New Jersey's two-year statute of limitations, which does include an equitable "discovery rule." Both the trial court and the New Jersey Supreme Court (with only the intermediate appellate court seeing it differently) sided with the plaintiff, holding that New Jersey's statute of limitations did apply and that plaintiff's claim was timely. While it should come as no surprise, it is nevertheless still galling to see the New Jersey Supreme Court using the same paternalistic language and concepts -- e.g., "[o]ur State's interest extends to protecting not just the citizens of this State, but also the citizens of other states, from unreasonably dangerous products originating from New Jersey" (Id. at *16) -- that other state appellate courts have used to justify their trial courts accepting cases that could and should be filed and maintained elsewhere.1

Rather than plow through the tortured reasoning of New Jersey's highest court, an exhausting exercise that we leave to others, we consider how McCarrell might practically change things moving forward. In particular, we home in on statements made by the New Jersey Supreme Court that may actually be defense-friendly. Though hard to believe that a decision that reinstates a $25 million verdict the court below had thrown out, McCarrell is not all bad. In fact, the New Jersey Supreme Court itself believes its decision -- which seems to invite all-comers with claims that may have expired under their home states' statutes of limitations, but not under New Jersey's -- "also benefits New Jersey companies" McCarrell, 2017 WL 344449, *14. In the Court's own words:

A New Jersey company, generally, should not have to defend against a claim that is stale under this State's statute of limitations in our courts, whether that claim is brought by a New Jersey resident or a citizen of another state. When a plaintiff from another state with a longer limitations period seeks to press a claim against a New Jersey manufacturer in our state courts after New Jersey's statute of limitations has expired, section 142 ordinarily will not permit the claim to proceed.

Id. at *14.

If the caveats are ignored ("generally", "ordinarily"), and we are to take the Court to mean that a consumer who purchases a product manufactured and sold by a New Jersey company, and is injured elsewhere, cannot use a longer statute of limitations in his home state to maintain a suit that is time-barred in New Jersey, what would be the practical effect? A natural, and correct, first instinct would be to say that any plaintiffs' attorney whose clients have statute of limitations problems in New Jersey, but not in their home state, should simply stay away from New Jersey's courts. The "benefits [to] New Jersey companies" are thus in some ways illusory. Smart and hard-working plaintiffs' attorneys will recognize that New Jersey courts stand to benefit plaintiffs whose claims may have expired in their home states, and that New Jersey courts should be avoided where the opposite is true and application of the New Jersey statute of limitations would potentially disallow their claims.

Here though, we think two observations are worth making. First, some plaintiffs' attorneys have traditionally liked gathering as many of their cases as possible in one court, with this court of choice sometimes being in the New Jersey mass tort system.

Second, and relatedly, it is unclear how much the uncertainty surrounding the prior rule ever really benefited the defense in recent practice. We promised we would not go into the McCarrell Court's tortured legal reasoning, or the history of the how statutes of limitations were considered in New Jersey here. Nevertheless, we note that prior to the McCarrell decision, which at least appears to have the benefit of stating a clear rule pointing to New Jersey's statute of limitations, the "most significant relationship test" under the Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws was the law of the land. This test was one that some commentators have described with words like "incoherence" and "mush."2 That mush seemed, from our perspective, to work more often to plaintiffs' benefit than it did for the defense's.

For example, and by way of anecdote, the same judge (the late Judge Higbee) that issued the trial court opinion in McCarrell, allowing a case that would have been time-barred in plaintiff's home state of Alabama, but not in New Jersey to proceed, later allowed a different case with opposite facts -- where the case would seemingly have been time-barred in New Jersey, but not under Florida's four-year statute -- to proceed by applying Florida law. Sessner v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., No. ATL-L-3394-11-MT, Trial Tr. at 12-17 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Atl. Cnty. Feb. 27, 2012). At least in McCarrell, the Supreme Court appears to be providing some real (if, in our judgment, misguided) clarity.3

So with that as backdrop, what actual impact will McCarrell likely have on filings into the New Jersey courts, particularly cases that would go into an existing or potential mass tort designation? Will, for example, this decision have the effect of opening the floodgates to cases being brought in the New Jersey courts against New Jersey companies that were time-barred elsewhere? Here, with the ink still drying on the decision, is our best guess:

  • For most possible cases, McCarrell will either have no effect whatsoever, or very little. Most cases that get or might be filed either do not have obvious statute of limitations issues, or do not have statute of limitations issues where there is an obvious difference between the domicile state's statute of limitations, and that in New Jersey.
  • For cases where the plaintiff resides and/or was injured in a state with an obviously short statute of limitations, or one whose discovery exception either does not exist, or is harder for a plaintiff to meet than New Jersey's, New Jersey will provide a lifeline for some cases where the New Jersey statute has not expired. States of concern include Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee, all of which have a one year statute of limitations. Additionally, states like Alabama that have no tolling or discovery rule attached to its statute of limitation are also of concern. Seeing the practical effect in a case like McCarrell is obviously concerning for the defense -- taking a case that could and should have been time-barred, and instead allowing for a potential $25 million verdict -- but it is simply hard to know how many similar cases like it are out there, or may come in the future.
  • Finally, McCarrell may have some beneficial chilling effect on plaintiffs' attorneys looking to bring as many cases as possible into the New Jersey courts while doing as little pre-suit investigation as possible if the plaintiffs come from states whose statutes of limitations are generally more favorable for the plaintiffs' bar. For example, there are many more states with a statute of limitations longer than New Jersey's than there are states with a shorter one (Florida's is 4 years; New York's is 3).

On balance, the defense bar is rightfully concerned with the reasoning and outcome of McCarrell. But the certainty it provides as to the statute of limitations that applies to a case brought by an out-of-state plaintiff against a New Jersey company can provide some benefit to defendants going forward.

Footnotes

1 The California Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Sup. Ct. being the best recent example of a state appellate court embracing a trial court's unjustified power grab. See 377 P.3d 874 (Cal. 2016). On January 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in that case.

2 See, e.g., Douglas Laycock, Equal Citizens of Equal and Territorial States: The Constitutional Foundations of Choice of Law, 92 Colum. L.Rev. 249, 253 (1992) ("Trying to be all things to all people, it produced mush."); Jeffrey M. Shaman, The Vicissitudes of Choice of Law: The Restatement (First, Second) and Interest Analysis, 45 Buff. L.Rev. 329, 349-50 (1997) ("Because the second Restatement tries to be so much and do so much, it is rife with inconsistency, incongruence, and incoherence.").

3 In fact, the N.J. Supreme Court appears to go to lengths to make the point that it is trying to describe an approach to statute of limitations that may be interpreted definitively, see, e.g., fn. 9 ("Going forward, to avoid any confusion, we are establishing a bright-line rule: a conflict of law is present whenever the selection of one statute of limitations over another is outcome dispositive.").

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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