The plaintiff bar obtained a significant victory this week and should allow out of state plaintiffs to utilize New Jersey law tolling statute of limitation defenses.
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017, the New Jersey Supreme Court reinstated one of its largest verdict in recent years—a $25 million jury award stemming from an Alabama man who fell ill after taking Accutane, a prescription acne medication manufactured by Hoffman-LaRoche Inc. and Roche Laboratories, Inc.
The issue decided by New Jersey’s highest court was which two-year statute of limitations law should apply: New Jersey’s law, which allows for tolling under “discovery rule” principles, or Alabama’s, which does not. The Court ultimately decided to apply the law of New Jersey despite the fact that the plaintiff, Andrew McCarrell, was an Alabama resident, ingested the medication in Alabama, and received treatment in Alabama. The case was filed in New Jersey solely based on the residence of the drugmaker defendants.
McCarrell alleged in the lawsuit that Accutane was responsible for an inflammatory bowel disease that led to the loss of his colon. Despite being diagnosed with the disease in 1996, he did not file suit in New Jersey until 2003, well beyond the two-year statute of limitations provided under Alabama law.
On appeal from the trial court, the appellate court was persuaded and ruled that Alabama had more significant contacts to the case and that, therefore, its statute of limitations should apply to the case. The case was dismissed and the plaintiff appealed the ruling to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
But, in making its determination of which state’s statute of limitations to apply to the case, the New Jersey Supreme Court saw it differently and instead looked at the substantial interests by New Jersey in the case. It reasoned that:
New Jersey has a substantial interest in deterring its manufacturers from developing, making, and distributing unsafe products.
The Court further asserted that this interest did not solely lie with in-state citizens, but extended to protecting citizens of other states. It also reasoned that Alabama had no interest in denying its citizens the same relief that would be accorded to a New Jersey citizen for the same wrong in a New Jersey court.
The Court reversed the ruling by the appellant court and ruled that the plaintiff’s claim was timely filed within two years of when he knew or should have known of the existence of his claim. Accordingly, it reinstated the verdict and damages found at the trial level.
This should open the door for out-of-state plaintiffs to utilize New Jersey’s tolling statute even if their home state does not afford similar privileges under their home state’s law.
The case is Andrew McCarrell v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc. et al., case number 076524, in the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
