Mercer Ins. Co. of N.J. v. Baron
| Decision Date | 25 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-2764-19 |
| Parties | MERCER INSURANCE CO. OF NEW JERSEY, a/s/o MINNIE MISCIK, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN BARON, JANICE BARON, IAN ROBERT MUSCHETT, SANDRA MUSCHETT, DYLAN WEIDENFELD, EVAN TSCHABOLD, and DEVON PEREZ, Defendants. PARAMOUNT INSURANCE COMPANY, a/s/o SANDRA WALTERS, and IAN MUSCHETT, Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Respondents, v. KEVIN BARON, MAX YENK, and DYLAN WEIDENFELD, Defendants-Respondents/ Cross-Appellants. FRANKLIN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee of MINNIE MISCIK, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN BARON, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. IAN MUSCHETT, SANDRA WALTERS, DYLAN WEIDENFELD, EVAN TSCHABOLD, and DEVON PEREZ, Third-Party Defendants. HIGH POINT PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, a/s/o ROBIN YENK, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN BARON, DYLANWEIDENFELD, IAN MUSCHETT, SANDRA WALTERS, Defendants, and KEVIN BARON, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. DEVON PEREZ and EVAN TSCHABOLD, Third-Party Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued November 10, 2021
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Middlesex County, Docket No. L-4236-16.
Richard S. Nichols argued the cause for appellants (Gennet Kallmann, Antin, Sweetman & Nichols, PC, attorneys Richard S. Nichols, on the briefs).
Joseph W. Lennon and Michael T. Kearns argued the cause for respondents Kevin Baron and Dylan Weidenfeld (Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP, attorneys for respondent Kevin Baron; Gregory P. Helfrich & Associates, attorneys for respondent Dylan Weidenfeld; Michael T. Kearns and John Aufiero, of counsel and on the brief; Juliann M. Alicino, on the brief).
Barbara S. Sheridan argued the cause for respondent Max Yenk (Law Office of Debra Hart, attorneys; Barbara S. Sheridan, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Fuentes, Gilson, and Gooden Brown.
These appeals arise out of a fire that destroyed a house in New Brunswick. The house was owned by Ian Muschett and Sandra Walters (the Landlords) and insured by plaintiff, Paramount Insurance Company (Paramount). The house consisted of two apartments and, at the time of the fire, one of the apartments had been leased to defendants Kevin Baron and Maxwell Yenk. When the fire started, several people including defendant Dylan Weidenfeld, were visiting Baron's and Yenk's apartment.[1]
Paramount paid the Landlords for the damage to the house and sued Baron, Yenk, and Weidenfeld, alleging that Baron and Yenk were responsible for the damages under the lease and Baron and Weidenfeld were negligent in causing the destruction of the house. The lease claim against Yenk was dismissed on summary judgment. The negligence claims were tried, and a jury found that Baron and Weidenfeld were not responsible for the destruction of the house; rather, the jury found that the Landlords were "100 percent" responsible for the damages.
Paramount appeals from the order dismissing the lease claim on summary judgment. It also appeals from the no-cause judgment entered in favor of Baron and Weidenfeld based on the jury verdict. Baron and Weidenfeld cross-appeal, contending that they should have been granted directed verdicts during trial.
The jury has spoken and found that the Landlords were fully responsible for the destruction of the house. We discern no error in that verdict or the rulings on discovery or the admission of evidence leading up to that verdict. Although we reverse the order granting summary judgment on the lease claim, we remand for the entry of a judgment dismissing the lease claim against Yenk and Baron because the jury verdict now collaterally estops Paramount from claiming that the tenants were responsible for the damage to the house. We dismiss the cross-appeals of Baron and Weidenfeld as moot.
We discern the facts from the record, including the evidence submitted at trial. The Landlords owned a house on Hamilton Street in New Brunswick. The house consisted of two apartments: a lower apartment in the basement and first floor, and an upper apartment on the second and third floors. The apartments were usually rented to Rutgers students.
In June 2014, Baron and Yenk signed a one-year lease to occupy the lower apartment. On February 1, 2015, Baron hosted a party to watch the Superbowl. Several people attended, including Weidenfeld.
While watching the game, Weidenfeld cut his leg on a coffee table. Baron brought out a bottle of rubbing alcohol to clean the cut. Later, Baron testified that he placed the bottle on the floor but was not sure if he completely screwed the cap onto the bottle. Shortly thereafter, he noticed that the bottle had spilled and a puddle of liquid had formed. He went to clean up the spill, saw that some of the liquid had run under the kitchen oven, and the liquid caught on fire.
Baron was "standing in the puddle" of rubbing alcohol when it ignited. The fire quickly spread to a couch and Baron and others tried to put the fire out. During those efforts, Baron tried to use a fire extinguisher located in his apartment and Yenk retrieved two fire extinguishers from the upper-floor apartment. None of the fire extinguishers worked.
The fire spread quickly and within approximately four minutes, everyone fled the house. Firefighters, police, and medical emergency personnel responded to the house. While the firefighters arrived shortly after the fire started, the fire ultimately burnt most of the house, causing its total destruction.
One of the responding police officers was Ryan Daughton. After helping to evacuate people in surrounding homes, Officer Daughton spoke with Weidenfeld, Baron, Yenk, and Evan Tschabold, another guest. In his investigative report, Officer Daughton noted: "all parties involved were consuming alcoholic beverages during the evening."
Emergency medical personnel treated Baron at the scene for smoke inhalation and second- and third-degree burns. Thereafter, Baron was taken to a local hospital for further treatment. No one else was seriously injured.
After the fire destroyed the house, Paramount paid the Landlords $363, 518 for property damage and lost rent. Thereafter, in 2016, as subrogee to the Landlords, Paramount sued Baron and Yenk. In 2018, Paramount amended the complaint to include Weidenfeld. Paramount asserted two causes of action: breach of contract and negligence. Specifically, Paramount alleged that Baron and Yenk had breached their lease by destroying the house. Paramount also claimed that Baron and Weidenfeld had negligently caused the fire that led to the destruction of the house.
The parties engaged in two years of discovery, which ended in August 2018. The matter was first scheduled for trial in November 2018, but after several adjournments, the trial was rescheduled to begin in January 2020.
In November 2019, Yenk moved for summary judgment to dismiss the breach-of-lease claim against him. At approximately the same time, Paramount asked Baron, through his counsel, to sign a HIPAA authorization to obtain his hospital records. Baron refused and Paramount filed a motion for a protective order to obtain Baron's medical records, contending that the records might show that Baron had been intoxicated when the fire broke out. Baron opposed that motion and cross-moved to join Yenk's motion to dismiss the breach-of-lease claims.
Oral arguments on those three motions were heard on December 20, 2019. On the record, the trial court "reserved" decision, but later that day it issued three orders: (1) granting Yenk's motion and dismissing the contract claim against Yenk; (2) "den[ying]" Baron's motion; and (3) denying Paramount's motion to compel Baron's hospital records.
The order addressing Yenk's and Baron's motion stated:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as submitted during oral arguments held on December 20, 2019, there exist[] no claims of negligence against Defendant Yenk. According to the Lease and Pursuant to paragraph [nine], said Lease ended upon the complete destruction of the property.
The order concerning Yenk's motion then stated: "This motion is hereby GRANTED." The order concerning Baron's cross-motion stated: "Therefore, this motion is hereby denied."
The order denying Paramount's motion stated:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for [a] Protective Order is an attempt to re-open discovery [] which does not procedurally comply with the Court rules. Further, as this matter is returnable after the conclusion of the discovery end date[, ] the Plaintiff has not satisfied exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, [for] these reasons Plaintiff's motion for [a] protective Order [is] hereby denied.
Counsel for all parties agree that the trial court meant to grant Baron's cross-motion to dismiss the breach-of-lease claim. Accordingly, the matter proceeded to trial in January 2020 only on the negligence claims.
On the first day of trial, Baron and Weidenfeld moved in limine to preclude any reference to their use of alcohol on the night of the fire. In response, Paramount argued that Officer Daughton was prepared to testify that Baron and Weidenfeld appeared to be intoxicated when he saw them after the fire.
The trial court granted the motion to preclude and barred any reference to alcohol consumption. The court found that there was no evidence that any alleged drinking of alcohol caused the fire and, therefore, under Rule 403, references to intoxication or drinking would be more prejudicial than probative. In addition, the trial court found that Officer Daughton had not conducted any field sobriety tests nor had he made the type of detailed observations necessary for a factual foundation to opine as to whether Baron or Weidenfeld were intoxicated. The court offered to allow the officer to...
To continue reading
Request your trial