Serico v. Rothberg, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (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.

The Supreme Court has announced that it has granted review in EQR-LPC Urban Renewal North Pier, LLC v. City of Jersey City.  The question presented in that appeal, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Do the 2003 amendments to the Long Term Tax Exemption Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:20-1 to -22, apply to these tax abatement financial agreements entered into in 2000 and 2001?”

In a per curiam opinion, the Appellate Division (Judges Reisner and Hoffman) reversed a Law Division ruling in favor of plaintiffs.  The panel held that the agreements did not in

Phibro Animal Health Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 446 N.J. Super. 419 (App. Div. 2016).  When it comes to whatever the judicial opinion equivalent is of “click-bait,” few if any court rulings can top Judge Sabatino’s opening sentence in his opinion for the Appellate Division in this case yesterday.  “This case is about insurance covera