Richardson v. Miller-Murden
| Decision Date | 11 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-1490-21 |
| Parties | MARGARET R. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALYSE A. MILLER-MURDEN and MARK MILLER, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued March 29, 2022
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Union County, Docket No. L-2009-21.
Thomas W. Matthews argued the cause for appellant (Soriano, Henkel Biehl & Matthews, attorneys; Thomas W. Matthews, of counsel and on the briefs).
Glenn L. Cavanagh argued the cause for respondent (Gold Albanese Barletti & Locasio, LLC, attorneys; James N. Barletti, on the brief).
Before Judges Fisher, Currier, and Berdote Byrne.
In this interlocutory appeal, we consider the timeliness of plaintiff's complaint for personal injuries stemming from a motor vehicle accident on June 2, 2019. The trial court denied defendant's motion seeking dismissal of the complaint and granted plaintiff's motion seeking an order "declaring the complaint timely filed." Because plaintiff failed to file a complaint within two years of the accident, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, and failed to demonstrate substantial compliance with the statute of limitations allowing equitable tolling of her claim, we reverse.
Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter of representation to the carrier on August 23, 2019, and email communications on March 24, 2021 and May 14, 2021. The latter included a large demand package. But plaintiff did not file suit until June 9, 2021.
Plaintiff's counsel presents various reasons for the late filing [1] primarily arguing he was in substantial compliance because liability was not at issue in the matter, he was negotiating the damages claim with the insurance carrier, and the carrier failed to alert him the statute of limitations was about to run. Plaintiff's counsel also argues he was out of the country unexpectedly and could not file the complaint by the statute of limitations deadline. Finally, he states he was lulled by the carrier's settlement discussions into believing litigation would be unnecessary.
Defendant argues a notice of claim to an insurance carrier does not toll the statute of limitations, plaintiff took no steps to obtain an agreement tolling the statute of limitations despite his communications with the carrier, electronic filing does not impede an attorney who is out of the country from timely filing a complaint, and the pleading eventually filed was a template, two-page document requiring much less time to prepare than the large demand package plaintiff sent to the carrier on May 14, 2021, twenty-six days earlier.
The trial court found there was "substantial compliance" with the statute of limitations and the statute "may be properly set aside" because the carrier had notice of the claim and there was no prejudice to defendant as the filing occurred only a week after the statute of limitations had expired. In examining this record, we disagree. Plaintiff has not demonstrated substantial compliance with the statute of limitations. Notice of a claim or mere negotiations cannot serve to toll a statute of limitations. Likewise, the carrier had no affirmative obligation to remind plaintiff the statute of limitations was about to expire.
Statutes of limitations are created by the legislature and serve the laudable goal that "eventual repose creates desirable security and stability in human affairs." Galligan v. Westfield Centre Serv., Inc., 82 N.J. 188, 191-92 (1980). Such statutes induce litigants to pursue claims diligently so that answering parties will have a fair opportunity to defend. Id. at 192.
Courts invoke the doctrine of substantial compliance to "avoid technical defeats of valid claims." Alan J. Cornblatt, P.A. v. Barow, 153 N.J. 218, 239-40 (1998)(citing Zamel v. Port of N.Y. Auth., 56 N.J. 1, 6 (1970)). The elements of substantial compliance are:
(1) the lack of prejudice to the defending party; (2) a series of steps taken to comply with the statute involved; (3) a general compliance with the purpose of the statute; (4) a reasonable notice of petitioner's claim, and (5) a reasonable explanation why there was not a strict compliance with the statute.
Cornblatt, 153 N.J. at 239. Our courts have generally been reluctant to extend the equitable doctrine beyond those cases where litigants have mistakenly filed a pleading in the wrong forum, a factor not present here.
Plaintiff's reliance on Negron v. Llarena, 156 N.J. 296 (1998) is misplaced. In Negron the Court concluded application of the doctrine of substantial compliance was appropriate because the complaint had been timely filed in federal court, the filing in state court took place shortly after the dismissal in federal court, and the defendant was not prejudiced because it had been actively defending the matter in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial