Products Liability Law Reporter

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a plaintiff alleging express or affirmative misrepresentations under the state’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J. Stat. Ann. §56:8-1 to -224, may also allege claims under the New Jersey Products Liability Act (PLA), N.J. Stat. Ann. §2A:58C-1, in the same action.

Sun Chemical Corp., which operates a New Jersey ink manufacturing business, installed a new dust collection system and purchased an explosion isolation and suppression system from Fike Corp. and Suppression Systems Inc. A fire occurred in Sun Chemical’s dust collection system on the first day the suppression system was operational, triggering an alarm on the system’s control panel. This was not audible, however, and an explosion sent a fireball through the dust collection system’s ducts, injuring several Sun Chemical employees and damaging the company’s facility.

Sun Chemical sued Fike Corp. and Suppression Systems Inc., alleging violation of the CFA. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants misrepresented that the suppression system would prevent explosions, have an audible alarm, comply with industry standards, and never fail. The defense moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff’s claims were governed by the PLA. The trial court granted the motion.

Sun Chemicals appealed, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question of whether a claim under the CFA can be based on allegations that might also be actionable under the PLA.Answering in the affirmative, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the CFA prohibits deceptive, fraudulent, misleading, or other unconscionable commercial practices in connection with the sale of merchandise or real estate. The statute’s language reflects the legislature’s intent that the law be applied broadly, the court said, noting that the statute states that the CFA’s remedies are in addition to and cumulative of any other right or remedy afforded under the state’s common law or legislation. Under the PLA, the court added, a products liability claimant may recover damages against a product seller or manufacturer where it is proved that the product was not reasonably fit, suitable, or safe for its intended purpose, with an exception for claims alleging breach of an express warranty or environmental torts.

The court found that the CFA and the PLA are intended to govern different conduct and to provide different remedies. Moreover, the court said, the two statutes pose no direct and unavoidable conflict, adding that nothing about the PLA prohibits a claimant from seeking separate relief under the CFA where the CFA claim is based on deceptive, fraudulent, or misleading commercial practices. Had the state’s legislature intended for the PLA to preempt the CFA, the court found, it would have said so.

Thus, the court held that CFA claims alleging express misrepresentations and PLA claims premised on product manufacturing, design, or warning defects may proceed in separate counts of the same lawsuit.

Citation: Sun Chem. Corp. v. Fike Corp., 2020 WL 4342658 (N.J. July 29, 2020).

Plaintiff counsel: Lance J. Kalik and Jeffrey Beer Jr., both of Morristown, N.J.

Amici curiae counsel: AAJ members Christopher M. Placitella, Jared M. Placitella, and Michael Coren, all of Red Bank, N.J.