Andrew McCarrell v. Hoffman-La Roach, Inc.(076524)
153 A.3d 207
| N.J. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Andrew McCarrell, an Alabama resident, took Accutane prescribed and administered in Alabama and later developed inflammatory bowel disease; Roche manufactured, labeled, and distributed Accutane from New Jersey.
- McCarrell filed a products-liability (failure-to-warn) suit in New Jersey in July 2003; the claim was timely under New Jersey’s discovery-rule statute but untimely under Alabama’s two-year limitations period.
- Trial courts applied New Jersey law and a jury returned a multi-million dollar verdict for McCarrell; the Appellate Division later vacated and dismissed the action under Alabama’s statute after applying the Restatement (Second) sections 146/145/6 analysis.
- The central procedural posture: Supreme Court granted certification to decide which choice-of-law rule governs conflicting statutes of limitations in tort cases filed in New Jersey.
- The Supreme Court held that Restatement (Second) § 142 (statute-of-limitations of forum) governs limitations choice- of-law questions in New Jersey and reinstated the jury verdict, remanding remaining issues to the Appellate Division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which choice-of-law rule governs competing statutes of limitations? | Section 142 of the Restatement (Second) — presumes forum’s statute applies when forum has a substantial interest. | Apply Restatement §§ 146/145/6 (most-significant-relationship) used for substantive tort law; injury-site presumption favors Alabama. | Adopted § 142 for statutes of limitations; forum’s statute applies if forum has a substantial interest and no exceptional circumstances. |
| Did New Jersey have a substantial interest in this case? | McCarrell: Yes — New Jersey has interest in deterring unsafe products manufactured in-state. | Roche: Most significant contacts are in Alabama; New Jersey’s interest is minimal here. | Court: New Jersey has a substantial interest (manufacturer is NJ corp; product designed/labelled in NJ). |
| Were there exceptional circumstances to apply Alabama’s limitations instead? | McCarrell: No exceptional circumstances exist. | Roche: The injury and all treatment occurred in Alabama; §142 should yield to Alabama. | Court: No exceptional circumstances; §142 presumption stands — New Jersey statute governs. |
| Effect of adopting §142 on forum-shopping and predictability? | §142 promotes uniformity, predictability, and parity between in-state and out-of-state plaintiffs and protects NJ defendants from other states’ longer periods. | Risk of forum shopping by out-of-state plaintiffs seeking NJ’s more favorable tolling. | Court: §142 balances interests, channels discretion, and will reduce unpredictability; potential forum-shopping concerns are limited by §142’s safeguards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heavner v. Uniroyal, 63 N.J. 130 (N.J. 1973) (rejected automatic application of forum limitations rule; weighed contacts of states)
- Gantes v. Kason Corp., 145 N.J. 478 (N.J. 1996) (adopted governmental-interest test for statute-of-limitations conflicts; applied NJ limitations to protect NJ manufacturer-regulation interest)
- P.V. ex rel. T.V. v. Camp Jaycee, 197 N.J. 132 (N.J. 2008) (adopted Restatement (Second) §§ 146/145/6 for choice of substantive tort law)
- Cornett v. Johnson & Johnson, 211 N.J. 362 (N.J. 2012) (addressed choice-of-law for limitations but found no true conflict between states’ tolling rules)