BRIAN COLLINS VS. PJW SERVICES, LLC (L-2766-17, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1437-19
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 26, 2021Background
- In January 2010 Brian and Barbara Collins contracted with architect Thomas B. Wagner for a phased project including construction drawings and construction administration; PJW was the builder and worked on the project from ~Oct 2010 to ~May 2011.
- Plaintiffs first complained about roof leakage during construction on December 12, 2010; they noticed mold and more persistent water intrusion in 2014 and sought mold remediation in 2016.
- Plaintiffs sued PJW and Wagner in July 2017 asserting CFA, regulatory, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and (after amendment) negligence claims; plaintiffs alleged defective design/poor construction and improper materials leading to roof leaks and mold.
- Wagner moved to dismiss for failure to file an Affidavit of Merit (AOM); the trial court denied that motion without prejudice and allowed limited discovery to determine whether Wagner acted in his professional capacity.
- Plaintiffs sought leave to file a second amended complaint adding professional malpractice and served an AOM; the trial court held that plaintiffs’ claims accrued no later than December 12, 2010 and dismissed all claims against Wagner as time barred (Feb. 6, 2019) and denied leave to amend.
- The Appellate Division reversed: it held accrual occurred in 2014 (when ongoing water intrusion and mold manifested), reversed denial of leave to amend, and remanded for a Ferreira hearing to resolve the AOM/professional-capacity issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did plaintiffs' claims accrue for six-year statute of limitations? | Accrual occurred in 2014 when ongoing water intrusion and mold made injury and its cause apparent. | Accrual occurred Dec 12, 2010 when plaintiffs first observed roof leakage and complained. | Accrual found to be 2014; trial court erred in treating 2010 complaints during ongoing construction as accrual. |
| Was an Affidavit of Merit required for the negligence/ malpractice claim against Wagner? | Plaintiffs: initial general negligence claim did not necessarily require an AOM; whether AOM is required depends on whether proof requires deviation from professional standard. | Wagner: plaintiffs alleged negligence by a licensed architect and therefore an AOM was required. | Whether an AOM is required is a factual question tied to Wagner's professional role; remand for a Ferreira hearing to decide. |
| Was denial of leave to file a second amended complaint adding professional negligence proper? | Leave to amend should be liberally granted; the claim is timely if accrual is 2014; amendment was not futile nor prejudicial. | Wagner opposed amendment based on statute of limitations and AOM defects. | Denial reversed; plaintiffs may amend to add professional negligence and proceed subject to AOM determination. |
| Were plaintiffs' contract-based claims properly dismissed as time-barred without regard to professional malpractice analysis? | Breach of contract claim accrues when injury is discovered and does not require an AOM; thus it was timely. | Wagner argued all claims were time-barred and/or required AOM. | Court held trial court erred; because accrual was 2014 the contract and tort claims were not time-barred and must be addressed on remand (including AOM issues where applicable). |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267 (1973) (announcing discovery rule for accrual of causes of action)
- Mahony-Troast Constr. Co. v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 189 N.J. Super. 325 (App. Div. 1983) (statute of limitations for construction/design defects runs from substantial completion)
- Couri v. Gardner, 173 N.J. 328 (2002) (AOM requirement depends on whether claim requires proof of deviation from professional standard)
- Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assocs., 178 N.J. 144 (2003) (procedural framework and purpose of AOM requirement)
- Murphy v. New Rd. Const., 378 N.J. Super. 238 (App. Div. 2005) (whether defendant acted in professional capacity is a question of fact requiring potential expert proof)
- Ben Elazar v. Macrietta Cleaners, Inc., 230 N.J. 123 (2017) (objective standard for when a reasonable person should know facts to trigger accrual)