Allen v. v. AND a BROS., INC.
208 N.J. 114
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Allen v. V & A Bros., Inc. involves CFA claims against a corporate home-improvement contractor and two individual owners/officeres; the trial record focused on the corporation, with individuals appearing only as witnesses and later dismissed as parties.
- Plaintiffs allege CFA violations tied to three Home Improvement Practices regulations: written contract (N.J.A.C. 13:45A-16.2(a)(12)), final approval before payment (N.J.A.C. 13:45A-16.2(a)(10)(ii)), and substitutions without consent (N.J.A.C. 13:45A-16.2(a)(3)(iv)).
- Trial granted partial summary judgment against the corporate defendant for the written-contract violation and dismissed the individuals under veil-piercing theory; a jury later awarded damages including CFA treble damages.
- Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the individuals, allowing personal liability under CFA based on statutory definitions and regulatory violations; it remanded to assess each individual's participation.
- This Court concludes individual liability may follow from CFA language and from tort-participation theory, remanding for a fact-specific determination of personal liability and rejecting collateral estoppel as to damages.
- The matter ultimately affirms, modifies, and remands for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can individuals be liable under CFA for regulatory violations? | Allen argues CFA extends to individuals involved. | V&A contends CFA liability is limited to corporate entities. | Yes, potential individuals liability under CFA for regulatory violations. |
| What standard governs personal liability without veil-piercing? | Plaintiff relies on CFA language and Saltiel for participation. | Defendants urge strict veil-piercing limits. | Personal liability possible without traditional veil-piercing, depending on facts. |
| Does collateral estoppel bar relitigation of CFA damages against individuals? | Damages issue should be re-litigated for individuals. | Collateral estoppel may apply to preclude damages relitigation. | Collateral estoppel not applied to bar re-litigation of damages on remand; limited privity analysis required. |
| Should remand consider each individual's level of participation? | Individual liability should reflect each person's conduct. | Remand should limit or preclude personal liability without evidence of participation. | Remand appropriate to determine level of individual participation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors., 148 N.J.582 (1997) (personal CFA liability for misrepresentation by corporate officers)
- Saltiel v. GSI Consultants, Inc., 170 N.J. 297 (2002) (tort participation theory for corporate acts extending to individuals)
- Kugler v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 120 N.J. Super. 216 (1972) (personal liability for corporate schemes; early CFA-related reasoning)
- New Mea Constr. Corp. v. Harper, 203 N.J. Super. 486 (1985) (principal may bear CFA liability; veil-piercing context)
- Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543 (2009) (interpretation of CFA remedial scope and broad definitions)
- Saltiel (cited again for participation framework), 170 N.J. 297 (2002) (reaffirmation of participation theory in CFA context)