KLRW Obtains Dismissal for Product Manufacturer for Lack of Jurisdiction

KLRW Obtains Dismissal with Prejudice of Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Claim of Engineer Malpractice Because No Affidavit of Merit Filed
June 21, 2021
Nick Guarino Obtains Summary Judgment in an Insurance Broker Malpractice Claim
July 1, 2021

Plaintiff was injured in the course of employment while using a laundry press. The laundry press was manufactured by an Illinois manufacturer. The equipment was sold to a non-party entity in New Hampshire ten years before the accident. The laundry press eventually ended up in New Jersey where the plaintiff was injured. The product manufacturer had no further involvement in the sale, distribution, modification or servicing of the laundry press other than to provide parts at the request of third-party distributors. The product manufacturer was not registered or licensed as a corporate entity in New Jersey, did not rent or own any property in New Jersey or maintain any offices in New Jersey. Furthermore, the product manufacturer never did solicit or direct any advertising in New Jersey. KLRW filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction claiming there was no specific or general jurisdiction or minimum required contacts within the State of New Jersey. The motion was granted.

When the matter was scheduled for trial as to the remaining defendant, plaintiff’s workers’ compensation insurer paying benefits to plaintiff moved to intervene to petition and argue for reversal of the dismissal of the product manufacturer. The motion was granted and the workers’ compensation carrier filed a subrogation complaint. The case was concluded as a stipulation of dismissal was filed as to the remaining party. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and the workers’ compensation carrier also filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiff failed to perfect the appeal. KLRW moved to dismiss the workers’ compensation insurer’s appeal as being barred by N.J.S.A. §34:15-40(g) which states that a workers’ compensation insurer has no standing to institute proceedings as a third party for the injuries sustained by an employee pursuing that relief. KLRW further moved on the basis that the workers’ compensation insurer had no standing as its intervention was improper and even if proper was solely done for the purpose of an appeal. The workers’ compensation insurer withdrew the appeal. Subsequently, the plaintiff sought to perfect its appeal claiming that its right to appeal was usurped by the workers’ compensation insurer. The Appellate Division found plaintiff’s claim entirely without merit as plaintiff was obligated to timely appeal, failed to do so and did not show good cause to extend the time to appeal. For more information, please contact Jonathan Altman, Esq. Jonathan.altman@klrw.law or 973-315-7927.