By Gibbons attorneys Caroline E. Oks and Yolanda L. Bromfield
In a recent decision answering a question certified to it by the Third Circuit, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that claims brought under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) may be brought in the same action as claims brought pursuant to the Products Liability Act (PLA), provided each claim is based on distinct conduct.
In Sun Chemical Corporation v. Fike Corporation and Suppression Systems, Inc., the Court explained that it is the nature of the actions—not the resulting damages—that determines when claims may be brought under either the CFA or the PLA. The Court clarified that CFA claims may be brought in instances where a party alleges “express misrepresentations — deceptive, fraudulent, misleading, and other unconscionable commercial practices,” while PLA claims are reserved for claims based upon “product manufacturing, warning, or design defects.”
The claims in Sun Chemical arose out of the plaintiff’s purchase of an explosion isolation and suppression system from the defendant to be used to “prevent and contain potential explosions” in the plaintiff’s new dust collection system. Plaintiff’s federal court complaint alleged that on the first day it used the suppression system, a fire broke out in the dust collection system and while the alarm in the suppression system was activated, it was inaudible. Plaintiff alleged that, as a result, several employees were injured and Sun’s facility sustained extensive damage. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the CFA by having “made oral and written misrepresentations about four aspects of the suppression system: (1) the suppression system would prevent explosions; (2) the suppression system would have an audible alarm; (3) the suppression system complied with industry standards; and (4) the system had never failed.”
Don’t miss valuable information like this. Click to receive free EP Blog updates
