NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY VS. AUTOTECH COLLISION SERVICE (L-0850-14, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-4531-14T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | May 9, 2017Background
- On May 5–8, 2014, Crincoli reported a deer strike to his insurer (NJM) and took his 2008 Jeep to Autotech (defendant) which performed a dismantling to prepare an estimate and issued a preliminary estimate of $11,726.55.
- NJM’s appraiser inspected and determined repairs were unnecessary to disassemble for estimating and concluded the Jeep was a total loss (value $11,900); NJM refused to pay for repairs and negotiated a salvage payment with Crincoli.
- Crincoli signed an Authorization to Repair (authorizing dismantling for an estimate; promising an estimate fee of $50 plus 3% of estimate) but that form did not disclose storage rates as required by regulation.
- Autotech sent a “Selection of Storage Option” letter offering inside ($100/day) or outside ($50/day) storage; Crincoli selected inside storage because Autotech had removed windows/door. Autotech billed large storage fees and refused to release the Jeep until paid; NJM paid a sum into escrow and recovered the Jeep.
- Autotech sued Crincoli under its repair contract and the Garage Keeper’s Lien Act seeking ~$26,567.60 (including ~$22,550 storage). The trial court awarded only $1,276.79 (estimate fee limited to $401.79, $75 hazardous waste, and $800 storage for May 6–22) and denied counsel fees. Autotech appealed; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (NJM/Crincoli) | Defendant's Argument (Autotech) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Autotech could recover the higher estimate fee it billed | Estimate fee unreasonable; limited to disclosed amount in Authorization | Regulation and other provisions permit charging more for estimate | Held for plaintiff: estimate limited to $50 + 3% of estimated amount ($401.79) per disclosure rule (N.J.A.C. 13:21-21.10(h)) |
| Whether Crincoli waived rights by signing Authorization/other forms | Waiver did not cover failure to disclose storage rates; forms were not a proper basis for larger charges | Waiver and later forms (Selection of Storage Option, Termination) authorized storage charges and other fees | Held for plaintiff: waiver of a "detailed" estimate did not excuse regulatory disclosure of storage rates; later forms did not validate undisclosed charges |
| Whether Autotech could charge storage fees after May 22 and claim lien under the Garage Keeper's Lien Act | Contractual forms and Act permit storage fees and lien for storage/services | Regulations and Act require prior written disclosure/owner consent to storage charges; Autotech’s dismantling created need for inside storage and it failed to mitigate | Held for plaintiff: storage charges beyond May 22 largely disallowed; Act inapplicable because storage charges were not requested/consented to in compliance with regulation (N.J.A.C. 13:21-21.14; lien inapplicable) |
| Whether Autotech was entitled to counsel fees | No entitlement; NJ law does not authorize fee-shifting here | Sought counsel fees as part of recovery | Held for plaintiff: counsel fees denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Manahawkin Convalescent v. O'Neill, 217 N.J. 99 (appellate standard of review for factual findings) (trial court factual findings entitled to deference)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Township Committee of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (legal issues reviewed de novo) (distinguishes review of law from facts)
- GE Capital Auto Lease v. Violante, 180 N.J. 24 (garage keeper's lien and consent requirement) (lien for storage exists only where owner requested or consented)
- Pheasant Bridge Corp. v. Township of Warren, 169 N.J. 282 (evidentiary sufficiency standard for appellate review)