The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in four more cases. Three of those involve grants of certification, while the fourth is before the Court on leave to appeal.
The leave to appeal case is Rivera v. The Valley Hospital, Inc., which actually involves three related appeals. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “In this medical malpractice action, were defendants entitled to partial summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages?” The Law Division denied the motion for partial summary judgment. After the Appellate Division apparently denied leave to appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave.
Dobco, Inc. v. Bergen County Improvement Authority, which entails two related appeals, presents this question: “Can a principal of a corporate entity challenge a procurement process if the corporate entity is barred from doing so, and when a county improvement authority is designated as the redevelopment entity under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, do the public bidding requirements of the Local Public Contracts Law apply to the county improvement authority’s selection of a redeveloper to serve as general contractor?” In a published opinion reported at 468 N.J. Super. 519 (App. Div. 2021), a three-judge Appellate Division panel held that the Local Public Contracts law requirements applied.
In Hyrmoc v. Ethicon, Inc., the question presented by the three consolidated appeals is “Among other issues, in these product liability trials should defendants have been permitted to present evidence that they had obtained ‘Section 510(k) clearance’ from the Food and Drug Administration for their pelvic mesh medical devices?” In an opinion published at 467 N.J. Super. 42 (App. Div. 2021), and discussed here, the Appellate Division ruled that defendants should have been allowed to present that evidence.
Finally, the question before the Court in Norman International, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co. is “Does the ‘Designated New York Counties Exclusion’ in the insurance policy, which excludes coverage for injuries ‘arising out of, related to, caused by, contributed to by, or in any way connected with’ any operations or activities in, as relevant here, Nassau County, New York, apply under the circumstances?” The Law Division granted summary judgment to the defendant insurer based on the exclusion, but a two-judge Appellate Division panel, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, reversed that ruling.