VINCENT HAGER VS. HOWARD D. POPPER, ESQ.(L-1477-13, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-5009-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- In August 2001 Hager was injured at work and retained Popper for both a workers' compensation claim and a separate civil action against third parties.
- In October 2005 Hager reluctantly accepted a $178,000 settlement in the civil action and signed a release.
- Popper moved to be relieved as counsel in the workers' compensation matter in March 2007; a successor attorney thereafter represented Hager.
- Hager filed a legal malpractice suit in May 2013 alleging Popper concealed material information (e.g., potential expert exclusions and medical-bill reimbursement issues) that would have affected settlement decisions.
- Popper moved for summary judgment arguing Hager’s malpractice claim accrued in October 2005 (six years before the May 2013 filing) and thus is time-barred; the trial court granted summary judgment.
- The Appellate Division vacated summary judgment and remanded for a Lopez evidentiary hearing because material fact and credibility issues bearing on equitable tolling/discovery remained unresolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual/statute of limitations | Hager: accrual delayed under discovery rule; he did not learn essential facts until Feb 2013 | Popper: accrual occurred Oct 2005 when Hager accepted settlement and signed release | Remanded — unresolved factual issues whether accrual occurred by May 30, 2007; summary judgment vacated |
| Equitable tolling / discovery rule application | Hager: fiduciary relationship and concealed facts justify tolling until he reasonably discovered malpractice | Popper: no concealment; Hager had reason to know in 2005 so tolling inappropriate | Court: discovery-rule analysis is fact- and credibility-dependent; requires a Lopez hearing |
| Need for evidentiary (Lopez) hearing | Hager: credibility and timing issues require live testimony to resolve discovery/tolling questions | Popper: argues record is sufficient and no hearing needed because accrual is clear as a matter of law | Held: Lopez hearing required because demeanor/credibility are important and the record is murky |
| Leave to amend complaint to add fraud allegations | Hager: newly obtained discovery materials support fraud-based amendment | Popper: amendment was untimely and unsupported | Trial court denied amendment; Appellate Division directed trial court to reconsider amendment depending on Lopez hearing outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267 (1973) (sets standards for discovery rule/Lopez hearing)
- Grunwald v. Bronkesh, 131 N.J. 483 (1993) (discovery rule applies in legal malpractice cases; accrual when client discovers facts essential to claim)
- Vastano v. Algeier, 178 N.J. 230 (2003) (six-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary-judgment standards and drawing reasonable inferences on review)