ANDERSON, vs A.J. FRIEDMAN SUP A-5892-07t1

BONNIE ANDERSON, ET AL. VS. A.J. FRIEDMAN SUPPLY CO.,
INC., ET AL. VS. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY,
ET AL. A-5892-07t1 08-20-10
In this asbestos litigation, plaintiffs Bonnie and John R.
Anderson, husband and wife, alleged that Bonnie contracted
mesothelioma from either one or both of two exposures to
asbestos at the refinery owned by defendant Exxon Mobil
Corporation. The first was bystander exposure from laundering
John's asbestos-laden work clothes during his employment with
Exxon from 1969 to 2003. The second was direct exposure during
Bonnie's employment with Exxon from 1974 to 1986.
Exxon appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs,
awarding $7 million to Bonnie and $500,000 per quod to John.
Exxon contends, among other arguments, that the action was
barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers'
Compensation Act (WCA), N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -69.3. We reject
that argument as it pertains to the bystander exposure. We hold
that Exxon owed a duty to Bonnie (as a member of John's
household) to exercise reasonable care to provide a workplace
free of asbestos, which could cause bystander exposure to the
household members of its employees.
We also hold that pursuant to the dual persona doctrine,
Bonnie could recover in tort if she could prove that (1) her
mesothelioma was caused from exposures while she was not
employed by Exxon, or (2) Bonnie's bystander exposure was the
substantial cause of her

CAST ART INDUSTRIES, LLC, ET AL. V. KPMG, LLP A-2479-08T2

CAST ART INDUSTRIES, LLC, ET AL. V. KPMG, LLP A-2479-08T2 08-26-10

The phrase "at the time of the engagement by the client" in
N.J.S.A. 2A:53-25(b)(2)(a), which set forth one of the
prerequisites under the Accountant Liability Act for imposition
of a duty of care upon an auditor to a non-client, refers to the
entire period from when an accountant is retained to when an
audit report is issued. The evidence in this case satisfied all
the prerequisites of the Act for imposition of a duty of care to
a non-client. The determination of whether misstatements in an
auditor's report are material involves both quantitative and
qualitative considerations. Although an auditing firm's
internal rules may be admissible as evidence of whether
reasonable care was exercised, such internal rules may not be
relied upon to establish a higher standard of care than the
common law standard of reasonable care under all the
circumstances. If the evidence supports a finding that
accounting malpractice was a substantial factor in the
destruction of the business of a party entitled to rely upon an
auditor's report, the value of the destroyed business may be an
appropriate measure of damages.

CUPIDO V. PEREZ A-4557-08T2

08-27-10 CUPIDO V. PEREZ A-4557-08T2
The question presented is whether an out-of-state resident
whose automobile is insured by an insurance company, which,
although not authorized to transact either private passenger
automobile or commercial motor vehicle insurance business in
this State, controls affiliate companies that are authorized to
transact commercial motor vehicle business in the State, is
subject to the limitation-on-lawsuit threshold pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, commonly referred to as the deemer statute.
We answered the question in the affirmative.

YELLEN V. KASSIN A-5596-08T3

YELLEN V. KASSIN A-5596-08T3 08-27-10
In this appeal, we held that the evidence did not support a
finding of reciprocal prescriptive easements. In doing so, we
emphasized that the hostility element still requires use of
another's property under a claim of right to an interest in the
property.

KENNETH VAN DUNK, SR. and DEBORAH VAN DUNK v. RECKS A-3548-08T2

KENNETH VAN DUNK, SR. and DEBORAH VAN DUNK v. RECKSON
ASSOCIATES and JAMES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. A-3548-08T2 08-30-10

A single act which an employer knew to be dangerous to an
employee can satisfy the "intentional wrong" exception to the
Workers' Compensation bar, precluding summary judgment, for a
contractor where a supervisor sent an employee into a trench
under construction knowing the risks of danger.

WALKER v. ROUTE 22 NISSAN, INC. AND CARMELO GIUFFRE ( A-2942-08T2 )

MARY L. WALKER V. ROUTE 22 NISSAN, INC. AND CARMELO GIUFFRE, ET AL A-2942-08T2 08-31-10

This appeal involves a class action filed by plaintiff
under the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and the Truth-in-Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). We affirm the
court's decision to decertify the class, to grant summary
judgment finding defendant liable under the CFA and TCCWNA under
plaintiff's remaining personal claims, to award plaintiff
compensatory damages under the CFA, and to impose a civil
penalty on defendant under the TCCWNA.
We reverse the court's award of counsel fees under the CFA
because the court determined the reasonable hourly rate
plaintiff's counsel was entitled to receive based on the judge's
personal experiences. We thus remand for the court to determine
a reasonable hourly rate after making the findings required
under Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292, 337 (1995). We also
reverse the court's decision to enhance plaintiff's counsel's
lodestar by forty-five percent and remand for the court to
reconsider whether a fee enhancement is warranted after applying
the factors identified by the United States Supreme Court in
Perdue v. Kenny A., ____ U.S. ____, 130 S. Ct. 1662, 1669, 176
L. Ed. 2d 494, 501-02 (2010).