Roach v. BM Motoring, LLC, 228 N.J. 163 (2017).  Plaintiffs bought used cars from defendants.  In connection with those purchases, plaintiffs signed Dispute Resolution Agreements (“DRA’s”) that required any disputes to be arbitrated “in accordance with the rules” of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”).  Several months later, plaintiffs filed for arbitration with the AAA, asserting claims under consumer protection statutes.  The DRA&

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.Â

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