The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in five new cases. They include a consumer class action, a parole matter, a criminal appeal, and two insurance-related cases.
The consumer class action is Baskin v. P.C. Richard & Son, LLC. [Disclosure: I am one of the counsel for plaintiffs, who filed the petition for certification in this case]. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Did plaintiffs meet the requirements for class certification under Rule 4:32-1, including numerosity, superiority, and predominance?” The Law Division denied class certification, and the Appellate Division affirmed in a reported opinion that (at least according to Lexis) does not yet have an official citation. That opinion was discussed here.
The question presented in J.K. v. New Jersey State Parole Board. is “Among other issues, was the Parole Board’s denial of J.K.’s application to reside in another country, which approval was required because he was subject [to] community supervision for life under Megan’s Law, arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable?” A two-judge Appellate Division panel affirmed the Parole Board’s action in an unpublished per curiam opinion.
State v. Hanna presents this question: “Was the evidence defendant presented in support of his motion for a new trial discoverable by reasonable diligence before trial and was the proposed testimony of a potential witness at defendant’s trial inadmissible hearsay under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25) that would not have changed the jury’s verdict?” The Law Division denied defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal to the Appellate Division, that court affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion by a three-judge panel.
The first of the insurance-related cases is New Jersey Transit Corporation v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London. The question presented there is “Among other issues, were the losses suffered by the New Jersey Transit Corporation due to Superstorm Sandy covered up to the $400 million insurance limit in the policies, or only up to the $100 million sublimit in the policies?” On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Law Division ruled for New Jersey Transit, awarding the $400 million amount. A three-judge panel of the Appellate Division affirmed that decision in an opinion reported at 461 N.J. Super. 440 (App. Div. 2019).
The final case is Huggins v. Aguilar, which presents this question: “Is the provision in the automobile dealer’s insurance policy, which provides coverage in the minimum amount required by law only if the driver of the vehicle has no other coverage or if the driver has coverage in an amount less than the statutory minimum, a permissible step-down provision or an unlawful escape clause?” The opinions below were not available for review as this post was being written.