Consumer Rights Lawyer in New Jersey
New Jersey Lawsuits and consumer litigation and the need for a New Jersey Consumer Rights attorney
Consumer rights attorneys practicing consumer law have to address numerous and extensive legal issues on a daily basis. These issues deal with the various consumer laws of each state, the various lemon laws of each state, and the various warranty laws of each state. There are also industry specific litigation areas for consumer lawyers.
As an example, there are a small number of lawyers that litigate in the auto industry. These attorneys litigate against car dealerships that allegedly have deceived and work engaged in deceptive practices. There are also a group of lawyers who litigate against debt collectors. The litigation comes under the fair debt collection practices act. There is a group of attorneys who litigate against credit reporting agencies. This area law is called the fair credit repair act or the FCRA. There is also the Uniform Commercial Code which deals with various consumer issues including breach of warranty, good faith and various contracts for sales of goods.
Consumer rights attorneys operate under the same rules of evidence in a court rules as other attorneys. Consumer lawyers focus their practice on the consumer laws and generally operate under a fee shifting standard. Usually, the consumer laws including breach of warranty and lemon laws provide that a consumer can have the fees paid by the defendant if they are successful. The same concept is true in civil rights litigation.
The practice of consumer litigation is extremely rewarding both personally and professionally. The concept of consumer litigation and the consumer law surrounding consumer litigation is to provide consumers with equal access to the courts with the ability to have a competent attorney represent them as a result of the fee shifting nature of the statutes.
You might be from lawyer with the extent of consumer class actions. Consumer class actions are available in various areas of the law and it is a procedural remedy rather than a substantive remedy. In short, this means that is a procedural device to permit one consumer to act on behalf of other consumers who are easily identifiable. There are requirements however these are addressed by the various procedural guidelines created by each state contained in court rules.
You might also be familiar with the letter laws that provide remedies to consumers who have purchased defective goods. The various state level laws were created to provide consumers access to the courts against defendant that have significant resources. The existence of these laws is extremely favorable for consumers and provides them with the ability to go to court if they purchased a defective product.
Consumer Lawyers and consumer rights attorney can help you if you have claims under New Jersey law.
The laws of New Jersey specifically the consumer law and fraud laws in New Jersey are very strong. New Jersey boasts some of the strongest consumer laws including the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, in the entire nation. There are mandatory triple damages for an ascertainable loss there are the recovery of attorney’s fees and the recovery of costs for successful litigants.
Individuals who have been agreed and web sustained an ascertainable loss have very powerful remedies and rights under New Jersey law. The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act is but one of the numerous statutes and administrative code sections to assist consumers in recovering money which has been obtained as a result of a deceptive practice.
The following is form a dismissal motion that was filed by an insurance company and opposed by the plaintiff in a consumer case filed against a car dealer and also an insurance company:
The defendant’s motion for dismissal should be denied. They have, in essence, filed a summary judgment motion with expert opinion. This case is not ripe for summary judgment.
This lawsuit arises out of the plaintiff’s purchase of the subject automobile from Car Dealer on or about October 27, 2012. The plaintiff alleges that the selling dealer committed acts of fraud and consumer fraud regard to misrepresentations associated with the condition of the vehicle. See exhibit A first amended complaint.
The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant, Insurance Company Insurance, has committed acts of fraud and consumer fraud, or negligent, regarding a claim that they adjusted on the vehicle that resulted in about $30,000 in damage. See exhibit A, insurance estimate attached to amended complaint. The plaintiff specifically asserts that the plaintiff “received the Carfax and the person as such the plaintiff would have been put on notice had the defendants appropriately salvaged and/or title and for reported information is required under New. See exhibit A, count 1, paragraph 10.
The plaintiff has made sufficient, specific allegations as to the inappropriate conduct of the insurance company, Insurance Company Insurance Company. If the court were to determine that these allegations are not specific enough to put the defendants on notice the plaintiff should be provided the opportunity to amend the complaint to specifically state the allegations against the defendant. New Jersey Courts have held as follows:
We have sought to make clear that such motions, almost always brought at the very earliest stage of the litigation, should be granted in only the rarest of instances. If a complaint must be dismissed after it has been accorded the kind of meticulous and indulgent examination counseled in this opinion, then, barring any other impediment such as a statute of limitations, the dismissal should be without prejudice to a plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint. Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 772 (1989)
Insurance Company has submitted, what is in essence, expert opinion asserting that the vehicle should not have been salvaged or otherwise totaled. The plaintiff has not had the opportunity to cross examine this expert. Nonetheless, this expert does not provide any opinion as to whether or not this information with regard to the flood damage should have been reported so as to be ultimately included on a Carfax received by the plaintiff. Had the defendant, Insurance Company, acted appropriately, both the plaintiff and the selling dealer would have been put on notice as to the prior damage. See 11 NYCRR §216.10(d). In essence, the plaintiff is asserting that the Carfax should have contained the information that was known to Insurance Company. Insurance Company had an obligation to make sure that Carfax received accurate information so it would be accurately reported.
The only issue is not the statutory scheme in New York. There are numerous other issues in this case including but not limited to the defendant’s relationship with Carfax, how Carfax compiles and reports information and what Insurance Company does with the information aside from the regulatory set up. The plaintiff is asserting that Carfax should have had the information which was in the possession of Insurance Company, which was the nature and extent of the loss. Had Insurance Company provided Carfax with this information the plaintiff and the selling dealer would’ve been on notice. Not only is there a statutory duty but there is, as an option, also an industry standard or common practice with regard to reporting this information to Carfax. Did Insurance Company have an agreement with Carfax? Bottom line, the plaintiff is alleging that this information should have been reported to Carfax. (negligence).
The defendant’s motion with regard to the statute of limitations should be denied. New York State maintains the discovery rule. Thus it is not the 2010 date that needs to be addressed rather when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the prior loss adjusted by Insurance Company. NY C.P.L.R. 213(8) (2003); Kaufman v. Kaufman, 135 A.D.2d 786, 522 N.Y.S.2d 899, 900 (2d Dep’t 1987); Scally v. Simcona Elec. Corp., 135 A.D.2d 1086, 523 N.Y.S.2d 307, 308 (4th Dep’t 1987). The fact that Insurance Company had adjusted such a significant loss only became known recently when a subpoena was served upon them for this information. See exhibit C, subpoena April 2015).
New Jersey is a proper forum for this case. The defendant’s claim of forum non conveniens is not supported by the facts. Insurance Company has failed to demonstrate one reason associated with Insurance Company themselves why this is not an appropriate forum. New Jersey is an appropriate forum in this case. This case involves violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act with regard to a sale of the motor vehicle.
The selling dealer is a New Jersey corporation. A potentially dangerous vehicle was put on the roads in the state of New Jersey. All of the witnesses with regard to the underlying transaction are located here in New Jersey. The sale occurred here in New Jersey. Quite frankly, to compel New Jersey witnesses including employees of the selling dealership, a small business, to travel to either Pennsylvania or New York would be more inconvenient than preserving testimony from Insurance Company.
The testimony of any and all witnesses in New York can be easily obtained. There has been no representation from the defendant, Insurance Company, that there their employee, witnesses associated with adjusting the claim, complying with New York regulations are located in New York. The defendant, Insurance Company, simply relies upon the fact that the vehicle was potentially repaired in New York. Insurance Company fails to put forth any Insurance Company related reason that this matter can not to be litigated in New Jersey. There is a significant relationship between this claim and the state of New Jersey which is the sale of the subject automobile. It is not clear how it is unfair and prejudicial to for Insurance Company to litigate the case in New Jersey.
Insurance Company seems overly concerned with the employees and process with regard to the repair facility. Insurance Company also asserts that there will be prejudiced not being in the secure is witness appearances in New Jersey at trial which clearly outweighs plaintiffs forum choice as a nonresident. This is not procedurally or factually accurate. It is very simple to take a videotaped deposition of the representatives residing in New York.
New Jersey has a very strong interest in enforcing its consumer fraud laws especially against the dealer’s residing within its borders. New Jersey has a very strong interest in making sure that potentially dangerous vehicles do not enter the roads in the state of New Jersey. In conclusion New Jersey is an appropriate form for this litigation.
A consumer rights attorney or a consumer rights lawyer can help you determine if you have a consumer claim in the state of New Jersey. New Jersey is a consumer friendly state with consumer laws to assist those who have a potential claim for deceptive conduct.
The consumer laws, while being consumer friendly, are somewhat complex and usually need an experienced attorney to review them to determine if you have a claim under the New Jersey consumer laws.
These laws range from addressing used vehicles, new vehicles, advertising, kosher foods and numerous other specific areas which the legislature has determined needs assistance for consumers.
These consumer laws are passed and are to be liberally interpreted in favor of the consumer consistent with the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
If you have a question with regard to the consumer was in the state of New Jersey and are seeking a consumer attorney please contact the Law office of Jonathan Rudnick LLC for assistance.