Town of Kearny v. Brandt
214 N.J. 76
| N.J. | 2013Background
- Town of Kearny sued Brandt-Kuybida Architects and others for defects in a public safety facility.
- Architects, structural and soil engineers, and a soil firm were involved; some defendants were dismissed.
- The trial court held SESI and Harrison-Hamnett actions time-barred by the statute of repose and limitations; Brandt-Kuybida survived for repose issues.
- Trial relied on April 9, 1996 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy as the repose-start date; November 1995 certificate was deemed incomplete.
- The Town later argued substantial completion occurred on April 9, 1996; Appellate Division allowed apportionment of fault to dismissed codefendants.
- Court ultimately held that repose started April 9, 1996 and that fault may be allocated to dismissed codefendants under the Comparative Negligence Act and Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the ten-year repose period commence? | Brandt-Kuybida argues earlier dates (Nov. 1995 or Feb. 1996). | Brandt-Kuybida contends completion dates in certificates/times mean earlier start. | Start date is April 9, 1996 (first Temporary Certificate of Occupancy). |
| May fault be allocated to dismissed codefendants under repose? | Fault should not be allocated to those dismissed by repose. | Allocation promotes fair apportionment among responsible parties. | Yes; fault can be allocated to SESI and Harrison-Hamnett despite repose dismissal. |
| Does a stipulated date of substantial completion affect repose start? | Stipulated dates should govern substantial completion. | Stipulations do not bind where the project was not substantially complete. | Stipulations do not establish repose start here; April 9, 1996 controls. |
| Is apportionment of fault limited to parties to the suit? | Settled/dismissed defendants should not be liable under apportionment. | Appellate Division correctly allowed apportionment to dismissed codefendants. | Appellate Division correct; apportionment to SESI and Harrison-Hamnett permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daidone v. Buterick Bulkheading, 191 N.J. 557, 191 N.J. 557 (N.J. 2007) (ten-year repose start uses occupancy/certificate benchmark)
- Russo Farms, Inc. v. Vineland Bd. of Educ., 144 N.J. 84, 144 N.J. 84 (N.J. 1996) (substantial completion tied to occupancy and punch list items)
- Trinity Church v. Lawson-Bell, 394 N.J. Super. 159, 394 N.J. Super. 159 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007) (stipulated substantial completion can be relevant for repose timing)
- Brodsky v. Grinnell Haulers, Inc., 181 N.J. 102, 181 N.J. 102 (N.J. 2004) (allocation of fault to settling/bankrupt defendants under CN&JTCL)
- Young v. Latta, 123 N.J. 584, 123 N.J. 584 (N.J. 1991) (settlements allow non-settling defendant fault allocation; credit rules apply)
- Ramos v. Browning Ferris Industries of South Jersey, Inc., 103 N.J. 177, 103 N.J. 177 (N.J. 1984) (workers’ compensation immunity removes employer from apportionment framework)
- Bencivenga v. J.J.A.M.M., Inc., 258 N.J. Super. 399, 258 N.J. Super. 399 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992) (apportionment despite fictitious/settled defendants)