The judicial system was not designed with business regulation in mind. Nevertheless, over the past few years New Jersey businesses have faced an increasing number of regulatory-based lawsuits, many of them quite frivolous in nature. These lawsuits are not being brought by the government, but by private attorneys empowered to enforce obscure business regulations on the government’s behalf.
A number of New Jersey’s state regulatory provisions specify statutory penalties for violations. Having a defined penalty enhances predictability and reduces inconsistent application of the law. When the statutes provide for enforcement actions by individual consumers, the statutory penalty model has the potential to provide the individual with a straightforward means of redress, often without need to even hire an attorney. Attorneys are getting involved though, and it is leading us toward a system where businesses are being regulated one jury at a time.
There are a number of upcoming events of interest to the legal reform community.
Sen. Robert Singer (R-Lakewood) has introduced a bill that would allow plaintiffs suffering from mesothelioma and their family members to file personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits at any time after the disease is diagnosed. If this bill is passed, it would make New Jersey a magnet for asbestos litigation.
On August 11, the Appellate Division issued an important ruling in the ongoing litigation over Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.’s acne medication Accutane. The decision by appellate judges Sabatino, Simonelli, and Leone overturns a $25 million+ verdict from a 2010 jury trial, and brings to a close a case that has been bogging down the court system for over a decade. It also sends a clear message that some choice of law questions are no longer open for debate.
This morning the Appellate Division issued an important ruling in the ongoing litigation over Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.’s acne medication Accutane. The ruling brings to a close a case that has been bogging down the court system for over a decade, and sends a clear message that some choice of law questions are no longer open for debate.
Delaware has dominated the business law scene for decades, but a recent move by its legislature has companies considering moving their legal issues, and thus their business, elsewhere. Delaware’s stumble could be an opportunity for New Jersey to woo businesses to the Garden State.
This week the American Bar Association is holding its annual meeting in Chicago. Thanks to NJCJI and other pro-defense attorneys and organizations the ABA will not be voting on a controversial resolution (link) that would have put the ABA on record as “oppos[ing] legislation that limits and/or bans punitive damages for claims of patient harm allegedly caused by manufacturers of FDA-approved medical products or devices.”
Did you know that New Jersey lawyers are 70% more likely than their counterparts nationwide to file a claim with their malpractice insurer? Even attorneys practicing in our notoriously litigious neighboring states face fewer malpractice claims. This suggests that one of two things is going on. Either New Jersey attorneys are awful, or there is something about our legal system that is encouraging excessive litigation. Data provided to the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute by CNA insurance suggests that the latter reason is more likely to blame for the high number of malpractice claims filed in the Garden State.
Asbestos litigation has been described by one prominent plaintiffs’ lawyer as an “endless search for a solvent bystander.” Nowhere is this truer than in New Jersey, where we have experienced three waves of asbestos litigation.
