The Supreme Court announced late yesterday that it has granted certification in three more cases.  In the first matter, Serico v. Rothberg, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Did plaintiff waive her right to pursue attorney’s fees, pursuant to the offer of judgment rule (R. 4:58-1 to -6), by entering into a high-low agreement without expressly reserving her right to recover fees?”  The opinion of the Appellate Division, which was discussed

On this date in 2003, the Appellate Division decided Seacoast Builders Corp. v. Rutgers, 358 N.J. Super. 524 (App. Div. 2003).  This was a relatively rare case in which the Appellate Division exercised original jurisdiction under Rule 2:10-5 to decide a discovery issue.  It was an even more rare result, since the panel ordered that documents otherwise protected by privilege be disclosed as a sanction for attorney misconduct.

This was a breach of construction contract case involving the alleged failure of Rutgers University to pay plaintiff on a multi-million dollar change

Serico v. Rothberg, 448 N.J. Super. 604 (App. Div. 2017).  In this medical malpractice case, plaintiff and defendant entered into a “high-low” agreement while awaiting a jury verdict.  As Judge Rothstadt noted in his opinion in this case today, such an agreement “guarantees a plaintiff a minimum recovery and limits a defendant’s exposure to an agreed upon amount, regardless of the jury’s award, if any.”  The low was $300,000 and the high was $1 million.