Lawsuit Reform Watch

Diegnan/Gill legislation revising shareholder class action lawsuits, A-3123, is signed into law

Legislation which revises the law concerning derivative proceedings and shareholder class action lawsuits was signed into law by Governor Christie.  It was part of a package of bills sponsored by Assemblyman Patrick Diegnan (D-Middlesex) and Senator Nia Gill (D-Essex)to advance economic-growth initiatives as recommended by the Corporate and Business Law Study Commission. 

A derivative action is a suit brought by a small or minority shareholder against the corporation’s management or directors.  A-3123 establishes a minimum value of shares one needs in order to file such a suit.  It would also amend the parameters under which such a suit may be filed, allowing corporations to avoid unnecessary litigation and costs. 

Assemblyman Diegnan said this legislation would make New Jersey “even more attractive for businesses looking to set up shop or expand their presence in the state,” calling it a “common-sense update to our corporate business law to show that New Jersey is truly ‘open for business’” [read statement].

This sentiment was echoed by Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester) a cosponsor:

"With fierce competition on all sides from our neighboring states, we must seize any advantage that will help make New Jersey an even more attractive place in which to do business,”  he said.   

NJLRA thanks Governor Christie for signing A-3123, as well as the sponsors and cosponsors for addressing this issue. 

Lacking support, S-2460 held by Senate Commerce Committee

The so-called 'bad faith' bill was held by the Senate Commerce Committee, due to a lack of support. 

 

Bad faith bill is bad policy for New Jersey

 

Read NJLRA's position here. 

'Bad faith' bill is bad policy for New Jersey

S-2460, the covertly dubbed “Consumer Protection Act of 2012,” is a new lease on trial lawyers’ attempt to create a new cause of action for ‘bad faith’ (S-766/A-3434).

That bill, S-2460, is now scheduled for a hearing on Monday, March 4th, in the Senate Commerce Committee. 

Proponents argue that this bill will help policyholders who have been affected by Superstorm Sandy by codifying existing case law, protecting their right to sue insurance companies who fail to pay claims to which they are entitled.  In reality, it adds uncertainty and greater consumer costs to New Jersey's homeowners' insurance market:

• Very few victims of Sandy will be helped.  Those who lacked flood coverage, had inadequate coverage limits, or could not afford their deductible could not file suit under this bill.

• Policyholders would be able to recover damages in excess of the terms of their insurance contract.  In addition, they would be able to file for attorneys' fees, court costs, and prejudgment interest dating to the time the suit was filed.   

• All New Jersey insurance customers, including businesses which purchase commercial insurance, will pay higher insurance premiums as a result.

And as we noted last month, many of us opt for lower premiums in exchange for higher deductibles.  Others quickly sign on the dotted line and hope we never meet the devil lurking in the details.  But when the worst happens, as many New Jerseyans experienced late last year, customers expect their insurer to cover their losses as defined in their coverage. 

New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co. (NJM) CEO Bernie Flynn told a legislative committee last month that they expect payouts to reach $300 million.  State Farm has made a point of expediting their 30,000 Sandy-related claims.  On some occasions, however, an insurer may fail to live up to their end of the agreement and deny payment to a customer.  New Jersey consumers are able to file suit against their insurer in these instances.  But recently reintroduced legislation threatens to add more bureaucracy and litigation into an already stressed civil justice system. 

S-2460, the covertly dubbed “Consumer Protection Act of 2012,” is a new lease on trial lawyers’ attempt to create a new cause of action for ‘bad faith’ (S-766/A-3434).  It wouldn’t simply codify existing case law with respect to ‘bad faith;’ rather, a court would only need to find that an insurer acted ‘unreasonably’ in order to win a bad faith case, adding subjectivity and the potential for awards beyond one’s coverage. 

Acting Department of Banking and Insurance commissioner Kenneth Kobylowski noted that New Jersey’s strong homeowners’ insurance market had rates near the national average despite having property values among the highest in the country. 

"To have average premiums in the middle of the marketplace is just a testament to how stable, how competitive and how well-run our homeowners' market is," he told NJ BIZ. 

But if the cost of doing business increases for New Jersey’s insurance industry, we can all expect our premiums to rise. 

Bill granting civil immunity to ambulatory, rescue, and first aid squads advances

S-2165 received the unanimous approval of the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee.  Under current law, only the officers and members of first aid, ambulance or rescue squads have civil immunity; not the entities themselves.  This bill clarifies that the entities, as well as the officers and members are not liable for any civil damages as the result of an act or the omission of an act committed while in training for or in the rendering of intermediate life support services in good faith. Its companion bill, A-3282, passed the Assembly Health and Senior Services committee with bipartisan support in January. 

S-2165 is sponsored by Senator Kip Bateman (R-Somerset).  Its assembly sponsors include Assemblymen Eric Peterson (R-Hunterdon), Anthony Bucco (R-Morris), and Herb Conaway (D-Burlington).  The measure awaits full legislative approval in each house. 

Subway is the latest example of why NJ's Consumer Fraud Act needs fixing

We can tell you that New Jersey’s courtrooms are among the nation’s easiest in which to file a ridiculous lawsuit, but sometimes the weaknesses of the NJCFA speak for themselves. 

Two New Jersey residents contend that the size of their ‘footlong’ sub from Subway fell short of twelve inches.  And with a straight face, they were able to file a lawsuit under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act with ease.  Their lawyer is seeking class-action status on behalf of everyone who’s purchased one and meets the criteria. 

A recent NJ BIZ article (Advocates hope bill takes bite out of N.J. fraud law / Jared Kaltwasser, 2/4/13)) examines a possible remedy for the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, sponsored by Assemblyman Craig Coughlin.  A-3264 has been referred to the Assembly Consumer Affairs Committee. 

A-1831 unanimously clears Assembly Health Panel

In our ongoing quest to keep good doctors practicing in New Jersey, NJLRA supported A-1831 before the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee, which advanced it with bipartisan support.

If enacted, A-1831 would help lower liability insurance premiums, which is frequently cited as a key reason for New Jersey’s so-called medical brain drain.  Insurance premiums begin to increase the moment a lawsuit is filed.  This bill would prevent insurance carriers from raising liability premiums based on a claim of medical practice, unless the physician is found liable in court.  It would also prohibit insurers from increasing liability premiums in certain charitable or emergency situations. 

A-1831 is an important first step to help reverse the public crisis of doctors fleeing our state, which is expected to worsen significantly in the next few years.  

Practicing specialized medicine in New Jersey is comparatively difficult for recent medical school graduates.  In addition to their student loans, new doctors must bear New Jersey’s high cost of liability insurance premiums.  Specialties which carry some of the highest premiums, including obstetrics and gynecology, disproportionately impact New Jersey women.  It is no longer cost effective for many existing OBGYNs in New Jersey to deliver babies, and many have stopped doing so altogether. 

We thank the committee and Chairman Conaway for their advancement of this measure. 

Assembly Health Committee to hear medical liability reform measure

The Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee is scheduled to hear A-1831 on Thursday, marking an important step toward addressing deep concerns about the cost of liability insurance within the medical community.   

Sponsored by Chairman Herb Conaway (D-Burlington), A-1831 would prevent insurance carriers from raising liability premiums based on a claim of medical practice, unless the physician is found liable in court, and would prohibit insurers from increasing liability premiums in certain charitable or emergency situations. 

This legislation would also provide civil immunity to healthcare professionals who volunteer their services in good faith.  Civil immunity would be available to volunteer healthcare professionals who do not have an active provider-patient at the time of the emergency.  As our population outpaces the number of physicians we need to adequately care for the health of New Jersey residents, volunteer healthcare professionals will become increasingly important.  By offering civil immunity to these volunteer medical personnel, A-1831 takes a step toward addressing our New Jersey’s public health needs. 

Practicing specialized medicine in New Jersey is comparatively difficult for recent medical school graduates.  In addition to their student loans, new doctors must bear New Jersey’s high cost of liability insurance premiums.  Specialties which carry some of the highest premiums, including obstetrics and gynecology, disproportionately impact New Jersey women.  It is no longer cost effective for many existing OBGYNs in New Jersey to deliver babies, and many have stopped doing so altogether.  It’s not just a matter of addressing a significant healthcare cost-driver; it’s also about ensuring that New Jersey residents – especially women – have access to medical care.   

The hearing will take place at 10 a.m. in committee room 16.

Bad faith bill reintroduced

Superstorm Sandy did something few insurance brokers could do: it forced homeowners to, in some cases, read their insurance policies for the first time. 

Many of us opt for lower premiums in exchange for higher deductibles.  Others quickly sign on the dotted line and hope we never meet the devil lurking in the details.  But when the worst happens, as many New Jerseyans experienced late last year, customers expect their insurer to cover their losses as defined in their coverage. 

New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co. (NJM) CEO Bernie Flynn told a legislative committee last month that they expect payouts to reach $300 million.  State Farm has made a point of expediting their 30,000 Sandy-related claims.  On some occasions, however, an insurer may fail to live up to their end of the agreement and deny payment to a customer.  New Jersey consumers are able to file suit against their insurer in these instances.  But recently reintroduced legislation threatens to add more bureaucracy and litigation into an already stressed civil justice system. 

S-2460, the covertly dubbed “Consumer Protection Act of 2012,” is a new lease on trial lawyers’ attempt to create a new cause of action for ‘bad faith’ (S-766/A-3434).  It wouldn’t simply codify existing case law with respect to ‘bad faith;’ rather, a court would only need to find that an insurer acted ‘unreasonably’ in order to win a bad faith case, adding subjectivity and the potential for awards beyond one’s coverage. 

Acting Department of Banking and Insurance commissioner Kenneth Kobylowski noted that New Jersey’s strong homeowners’ insurance market had rates near the national average despite having property values among the highest in the country. 

"To have average premiums in the middle of the marketplace is just a testament to how stable, how competitive and how well-run our homeowners' market is," he told NJ BIZ. 

But if the cost of doing business increases for New Jersey’s insurance industry, we can all expect our premiums to rise. 

Legislative Update - The "Facebook bill"

S-1915, which prohibits employers and prospective employers from requesting access to workers’ social networking accounts, was passed by the full Senate.  While NJLRA applauds the sponsors’ intent to protect employees’ privacy, the Senate did not amend Section 5 which would give current and prospective employees new grounds to sue businesses. 

NJLRA supported removing this clause.  Casual conversation over the mere existence of a social networking page with a subordinate, for instance, would become a thing of the past. Forgetting that could cost employers tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees – and it also gives the disgruntled ex-employee or the unqualified job applicant unprecedented leverage over their employer.   

Previous post.

NJ is Treacherous Ground for Physicians: A Panel Discussion

Ten years ago the Medical Society of New Jersey (MSNJ) worked hard to enact meaningful medical liability reform in New Jersey.  Since then, court decisions have gutted key statutes and insurance premiums have skyrocketed.  We are now on the brink of a severe doctor shortage as other states enact liability reform and attract new physicians. 

MSNJ will be hosting a panel discussion on Thursday, September 27^th with leading legislative and legal experts to discuss what can be done to combat the unique issues facing New Jersey’s doctors and their impact on public health. 

To register for this free event, please click here to visit the Medical Society’s website. 

Register for NJLRA’s Annual Fall Membership Luncheon!

With fall just around the corner, it’s time to register for NJLRA’s annual Fall Membership Luncheon!  This year’s speaker will be Senate Minority Leader Thomas Kean, Jr.  It will take place on Thursday, September 13^th at noon at the Trenton Country Club.

Time flies, so register today! 

 Click here to register online.

Protecting volunteers may expand healthcare in Trenton, NJ

As our nation continues to debate health insurance mandates and cost-drivers that left preventative medicine out of reach for many, volunteer doctors quietly set up shop in some of New Jersey’s most underserved communities, trying to alleviate public health burdens on a patient-by-patient basis. 

Trenton is one of these communities.  In a Trenton Times report earlier this week, City Health Officer James Brownlee explained that years of funding cuts forced its clinics to greatly reduce the services they could offer. 

But there may be light at the end of the tunnel.  And that light is federal “free clinic” status.

According to the Times, such a designation would provide “essential malpractice insurance for a new staff of volunteer doctors, nurses, and other professionals who have retired from local hospitals,” bringing with it an opportunity for clinics to begin expanding their outreach once again.   

Medical liability insurance is routinely cited by New Jersey’s medical community as a disincentive for doctors to practice in the Garden State.  Such premiums, particularly for OB-GYNs, are significantly higher than premiums in other states. 

New Jersey faces a doctor shortage by the end of the decade if we simply do nothing.  Physicians who volunteer a portion of their retirement to continue treating patients help close a gap that we have yet to fill – a gap that will only increase as the number of physicians per capita decreases. 

Some aren’t convinced that assuaging doctors’ concerns about medical liability insurance increases access to care.  But in some of Trenton’s most underserved neighborhoods, it’s clear that it may make a world of difference.    

Assemblyman Herb Conaway is the sponsor of A-2178, which would provide civil immunity for certain volunteer physicians, nonprofit clinics, and federally qualified health centers.  It was second-referenced to the Assembly Judiciary Committee after passing favorably from the Health and Senior Services Committee in May.  Chairman Peter Barnes has not indicated whether he will post it for a vote. 

The bill’s Senate counterpart, S-1165, has the bipartisan support of Senators Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) and Diane Allen (R-Burlington). 

Christie, Romney, and Legal Reform

Paul Ryan is Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick.  This means Governor Christie officially belongs to New Jersey for at least another 16 months. 

With movement on pension and education reform, legal reform and medical liability reform may rise on the Governor’s agenda.  The need for legal reform has grown more apparent in recent months as studies confirmed that New Jersey will face a shortage of physicians by the end of the decade.  The State Senate unanimously passed legislation authorizing DHSS to convene a summit to analyze the shortage’s implications for New Jersey residents; its Assembly counterpart, A-1828, awaits action by the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee. 

Have a happy, safe, and lawsuit-free 4th of July from NJLRA!

Red light cameras proponents say such cameras at intersections make our roads safer, deterring motorists from running them and causing serious accidents.  But many New Jersey motorists and taxpayers criticize them as being unfair for failing to take justifiable conditions into consideration, a fundraiser for cash-strapped government entities, a great way to get rear-ended by tailgaters, if not all of the above. 

Two South Jersey residents filed the first putative class-action lawsuit against Cherry Hill Township last month.  They say that yellow signals are too short at such intersections, in violation of regulations set by the Legislature in 2008, and a refund is issued to drivers.  The refunds would be administered by a court-supervised program.  It’s unclear how much (if anything) individual motorists would reclaim once attorneys’ fees and administrative costs are calculated. 

Read more in the New Jersey Law Journal.   

“Ambulance-chaser” bills advance

On Monday, the Assembly Judiciary Committee advanced legislation to prevent accident reports from being made available to the general public for 90 days following an accident.  Such reports are often aggressively sought by trial lawyers, which prompted Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz to dub the legislation, A-801, the “ambulance chaser bill.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a similar measure on Thursday, which would bar solicitation for 30 days following an accident.  S-761 is sponsored by Senator Nicholas Scutari. 

According to a report by Michael Booth in the New Jersey Law Journal, constituents often expressed concern to the legislators after receiving pieces of mail from attorneys referencing their “upcoming court case.”   The current Assembly version of the bill would require the word “advertisement” to be included on such mailers, in capital letters.

NJ Needs Class Action Reform - Support A894 in AJU Committee on Monday!

A894, sponsored by Assemblymen Chuisano and Wisniewski, would allow defendants to appeal a class action certification immediately. This means that defendants who believe the court made a mistake will not have to incur the time and expense of going to trial only to have to do it all over again because the class certification was erroneous from the start.

Learn more about A894 and how it would affect class action lawsuits and New Jersey's economy here.  

Please support A894 in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Monday, 5/21, at 10:00 a.m. in Committee Room 12

Committee members:

Assemblyman Peter J. Barnes, III (D18), Chair 

Assemblywoman Annette Quijano (D20), Vice Chair  

Assemblyman Ralph R. Caputo (D28) 

Assemblyman Gordon M. Johnson (D37) 

Assemblyman John F. McKeon (D27) 

Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll (R25) 

Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi (R39) 

New Jersey Needs Class Action Reform. Support A-894

The Co$t of bullying

Many of New Jersey’s school districts have maintained that New Jersey’s bipartisan anti-bullying law, while well-intentioned, is a costly unfunded mandate.  A state panel agreed, which prompted the law’s sponsors and Governor Christie to allocate $1 million to the state’s local school districts in order to help them pay for staffing and training. 

As the Gloucester County Times pointed out in an editorial earlier this month, $1 million spread over 612 school districts isn’t likely to quell the districts’ concerns regarding the law’s cost. 

And as NJLRA points out in a letter-to-the-editor, with so many bureaucratic nuisances, litigation is all but assured. 

“It ought to be possible to have an effective anti-bullying strategy in each of our schools without breaking anyone’s bank,” the GC Times wrote.

New Jersey needs a strong anti-bullying law. But with respect to this particular law, the bleeding has only begun.

Read NJLRA’s letter here. 

Auto insurance reform worked. Why not legal reform? #legalreform @lougreenwald #nj

There was a time when auto insurance premiums topped New Jerseyans’ list of complaints about life in the Garden State.  Today, a decade after comprehensive reform, it doesn’t crack the top ten. 

Noting the growth of NJLRA and our affiliates since our inception in 2007, Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald suggested legal reform could follow a similar course in New Jersey. 

New Jersey’s small businesses, particularly those located in Southern New Jersey, have experienced increased financial strain from rising liability insurance over the past few years.  Municipal governments are also feeling the effect of an overheated culture of litigation.   Irrespective of the merits or outcome, taxpayers foot the bill when a lawsuit is filed against local governments.  It’s not exactly the kind of investment one hopes for with his or her property tax bill. 

Click here for a list of active, bipartisan legislation which can improve New Jersey’s civil justice climate for taxpayers, businesses of all sizes, and the medical community and their patients. 

Touting tort reform before business

Read Andrew Kitchenman’s story in NJ BIZ about the prospect for lawsuit reform this year:

 

Advocates of lawsuit reform are touting the possibility of significant bills to reform the state's laws governing class action and consumer fraud cases, signaling what may become the biggest opening for changes since the 1990s.

A pair of bills introduced this session would limit the cost to post bonds for corporations that are appealing judgments, and would allow the subjects of class-action lawsuits to directly appeal the determination that a "class" exists.

The state's most prominent lawsuit reform advocate may be Marcus Rayner, executive director of the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance, which launched in 2007 to bolster lobbying on tort reform and related issues.

Rayner said the political climate is shaping up to be good for the bills.

"I think the business community has been impressed with this legislative leadership's interest with helping," along with that of Gov. Chris Christie, Rayner said.

Rayner said tort reforms in other states — including North Carolina, Wisconsin, Tennessee and Texas — increased pressure on New Jersey.

"A climate of excess litigation drives up the costs for everybody, from the business owner to the consumer," he said.

Read full story.

NJLRA Applauds Passage of Bill Requiring Study of NJ’s Looming Physician Shortage

The State Senate unanimously passed S-173, sponsored by Senator Robert Singer, which would require the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) to conduct a study of New Jersey’s looming doctor shortage. 

“The New Jersey Council of Teaching Hospitals warned us in 2010 that New Jersey will be short nearly 3,000 doctors by 2022 if preventative measures are not taken,” said Marcus Rayner, executive director of the Alliance. “This is on top of the current 12% gap between physician supply and demand.

“It’s encouraging that the Legislature is taking this issue seriously and trying to avert a crisis situation.

“New Jersey’s doctors, especially those in high-risk specialties, carry some of the highest liability insurance premiums in the country.  It is becoming harder for the average physician to undertake the expense of practicing in New Jersey when so many other states have enacted cost-saving liability reform during the past several years.

If enacted, S-173 would convene a strategic planning summit of stakeholders.   The Department would be required to report findings and recommendations to the Governor and Legislature six months after enactment. 

The legislation was approved by a vote of 40 – 0.  It awaits action by the General Assembly. 

New this week…

Assemblyman Herb Conaway, chair of the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee, reintroduced legislation granting civil immunity for certain volunteer physicians, nonprofit clinics, and federally qualified health centers. 

A volunteer physician is defined in this bill, A-2178, as a physician who is retired but maintains licensed and is not receiving compensation for patient care. 

New Jersey is projected to be short by nearly 3,000 physicians by the end of the decade.  Medical specialties, including OB-GYNs, are expected to be among the hardest hit.  By protecting volunteer physicians, nonprofit clinics, and federally qualified health centers – acting in good faith – from liability, A-2178 would remove a significant disincentive to practice in areas in which there is high demand for such services. 

Assemblyman Conaway is also the sponsor of A-1806, which would accomplish similar objectives and reverse the 2010 New Jersey Supreme Court decision in Ryan v. Renny.  The decision gutted the state’s affidavit of merit statute. 

Prefiled Civil Justice Bills

The following pieces of legislation were prefiled for introduction for the new legislative session, which officially began on January 10^th.   Please contact NJLRA if you would like additional information about any of the following:

Summary	New Bill #	Old Bill #	Sponsors
Extends $50 million cap on appeal bonds in civil actions to all industries in New Jersey	A241	A2473	Schaer, McKeon
Permits litigants contesting class certification the right to immediately appeal that ruling.	A894	A4135	Chiusano, Wisniewski
Caps noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions at $250,000.	A966	A1367/S610	Weber, Chiusano, McHose
Establishes a medical malpractice part in the Superior Court.	A1689	A260	Russo
Concerns liability in good faith treatment cases, standards of care, insurance coverage for medical malpractice actions and also sets time limits on medical malpractice claims being filed.	A1806	A1982/S670	Conaway, O'Scanlon, Weber, Handlin, McHose, Angelini, Riley, Huttle, Chiusano
Establishes limits for certain damages in medical malpractice actions.	A1926	A1806/S1844	Casagrande

Item of note: last day of the 2010-2011 voting session

A-3304, which NJLRA opposes, is scheduled for consideration by the full Assembly today.  If enacted, this legislation would make the 2008 False Claims Act retroactively applicable to alleged offenses occurring up to 14 years ago, from March 1998.

A lot can happen in nearly 14 years.  Companies change. Employees change.  Exonerating evidence is harder to come by.

But this bill doesn’t take any of that into consideration.  Instead, a company – no matter how big or small, equipped with a legal department or not – may be forced to defend itself against a False Claims lawsuit without the benefit of time-sensitive exonerating material. 

More importantly, A-3304’s retroactive application of the False Claims Act is unconstitutional, and puts companies that do business in the State of New Jersey in serious danger of unfair and unjust litigation abuse. 

A-265 Receives Broad Support in the Assembly Judiciary Committee

What do the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance, the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, NJBIA, New Jersey Retail Merchants Association, National Federation of Independent Business-New Jersey, Chamber of Commerce of Southern New Jersey, Chemistry Council of New Jersey, New Jersey Food Council, and the Healthcare Institute of New Jersey have in common?

All were present to support A-265, sponsored by Assemblyman David Russo, which would create specialized business courts in New Jersey.  Chairman Peter Barnes noted the wide range of support. 

Legal issues involving businesses are complex, laden with terminology and evidence which is unfamiliar to the common court.  Highly technical matters are identified and addressed at great cost to both businesses and taxpayers alike.  The advantage of a business court is that it would permit business-related judicial matters to be heard by courts with an established background and knowledge of such litigation.  A majority of northeastern states already have a business court in place, and it is actively under consideration by several others. 

Establishing a business court doesn’t just improve the efficiency of our court system – it sends a strong message to businesses that New Jersey is a solid place in which to expand and hire workers. 

A-265 was posted today for discussion only.  NJLRA looks forward to the bill’s reintroduction and advancement in the 215^th legislative session, which begins next week.  You can download a copy of NJLRA's testimony in support of business courts here.  

Legislation to create a business court in New Jersey on AJU agenda for discussion

A-265 would create a specialized business court within the New Jersey Superior Court.  

Legal issues involving businesses are increasingly complex, laden with terminology and evidence which is unfamiliar to the common court.  Highly technical matters are identified and addressed at great cost to both businesses and taxpayers alike. 

And unsurprisingly, we are among a minority of states on the east coast which do not have a business court in place.

NJLRA supports A-265 because it would permit narrow business-related judicial matters to be heard by courts with an established background and knowledge of business litigation.  And with an unemployment rate in excess of 9 percent – the highest in the region – the creation of a business court serves as an incentive for leading employers to increase their business presence in New Jersey.  The highly specialized industries, including the life sciences, which are affected by this legislation have the potential to create long-term, high paying jobs that will be essential to growing our state’s economy over the next several years.   

It is sponsored by Assemblyman David Russo (R-Midland Park). 

Legislative Update

A-3434, which NJLRA opposes, was passed in the Assembly yesterday by a vote of 44-27.  This bill, which requires a review of consumer contract for unconscionability, may actually be in conflict with Federal law under a U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down on April 27th, 2011 in AT&T vs. Concepcion.  In that decision, the Court ruled that "[w]hen state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the FAA [Federal Arbitration Act] displaces the conflicting rule."  Please click here for more information. 

Statute of limitations bill, A-3929, advanced by committee

The Assembly Regulated Professions Committee unanimously approved A-3929, which requires certain civil actions against certain licensed professionals to be brought within two years, down from six.

**Legislative Updates**

Assemblyman Upendra Chivukula’s “Trade Secrets Act” was passed unanimously by the General Assembly during Monday’s voting session.  Under A-921/S-2456, a company or organization would be able to sue for damages or losses that result from someone taking proprietary information (a recipe, chemical formula, invention, intellectual property, etc.) and trying to profit from it by selling it or manufacturing it.  If I take a secret recipe for a food item, sell it and make money from it, for instance, I would have to pay royalties to the company or person from whom I stole it.   A-921/S-2456 has now passed both houses and has the support of NJLRA. 

On the agenda for Thursday’s Assembly Regulated Professions Committee hearing is A-3929, which would require civil actions against certain licensed professionals (including most doctors) to be brought within two years instead of six.  This is especially important as witnesses become unavailable and records are destroyed over the extended period.  NJLRA supports this bill and looks forward to the committee’s favorable passage.  It is sponsored by Assemblyman Vincent Prieto (D-Hudson).

The Lame Duck Season is upon us

The so-called “lame duck” session of the Legislature – the period between Election Day and the start of the next legislative session in January – is traditionally a period of frenetic lawmaking activity.  For outgoing legislators who may be retiring or have not been reelected, it is the very last chance they have to shepherd bills through the democratic process. 

NJLRA has five bills which it hopes will advance:

A-2473/S-480, which would apply the $50 million appeal bond cap enjoyed by tobacco companies to all businesses in New Jersey, so they do not have to prepay in order to appeal a judicial decision.

A-3333/S-2855, which would limit causes of actions under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to consumers who suffer an ascertainable loss (as opposed to businesses), and make the Act applicable only to transactions which occur in New Jersey. 

A-4228/S-3028, the “New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act.” This bill would prevent drunken motorists, convicted of DUI, from suing licensed beverage servers who served them in the event they drive drunk and cause themselves injury.  (Yes, thanks to the New Jersey Supreme Court, we need legislation to clarify that drunk drivers cannot legally profit from their irresponsibility).

A-4135, which would allow defendants the right to immediately appeal a class action certification.

A-1982/S-760, which would address skyrocketing medical malpractice premiums and a consequential physician shortage in certain specialties by: protecting volunteer physicians acting in good faith from liability; prevent insurance companies from immediately imposing an increase on doctors who are named in a malpractice suit; require physicians providing expert testimony to be licensed in New Jersey and board certified in the appropriate specialty; and reverse the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Ryan v. Renny, which gutted the Affidavit of Merit Statute enacted in 2004. 

LRW will keep you abreast should any of the aforementioned bills advanced.  For the most up-to-date legislative calendar, click here to visit the Legislature’s website. 

Survey: South Jersey Becoming a Lawsuit Mecca

A majority of New Jersey’s small business owners want the Legislature to address legal reform, according to a Rutgers-Eagleton survey. 

And business owners in the Philly suburbs are the most likely to be taken to court. 

The survey found that the majority of New Jersey’s small business owners aren’t happy with the state’s culture of litigation:

• 84% of those surveyed rate the state’s business climate as “fair” or “poor,” and an astounding 87% say they want the Legislature to prioritize legal reform. 
• 24% of businesses statewide have been threatened with litigation in the past five years, but that number jumps to 40% among South Jersey businesses. 
• Overall, 1-in-4 South Jersey small businesses have actually been brought to court during the past five years.  The chances of courtroom litigation also increase with a business’s longevity and growth.
• Two-thirds of South Jersey businesses saw an increase in their liability insurance premiums during this time period, even if they haven’t been sued.

Marcus Rayner, NJLRA's executive director, released the following statement:

“It’s clear that New Jersey’s liability laws put the state at a disadvantage,” said Marcus Rayner, executive director of the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance.  But that disadvantage is exacerbated if a business happens to operate in the suburbs of Philadelphia.”

“Every time a lawsuit is filed against one of New Jersey’s small businesses, every business’s insurance costs threaten to rise.  Business owners are telling us that even if it’s not their business being sued today, they still might incur costs and will need to make judgments about where to invest their business’s resources."

“This is not the kind of restraint we ought to have in a state with a 9.2% unemployment rate.  When 87% of small business owners in a state want change, it’s time for the Legislature to act.” 

The survey was conducted by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University.    Full results can be found our website, http://njlra.org.

New Jersey Trade Secrets Act Advances

Admittedly, when I think of “trade secrets,” I tend to think of multiples of, well, Trade Secret. 

But in New Jersey, the “trade secrets” referred to an important piece of legislation, S-2456, which unanimously passed the Senate Commerce Committee on Monday. 

Trade secrets aren’t the same as patents.  For instance, you might patent a life-saving drug, but the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act might refer to the process behind its manufacture.

Under A-921/S-2456, a company or organization would be able to sue for damages or losses that result from someone taking proprietary information (a recipe, chemical formula, invention, intellectual property, etc.) and trying to profit from it by selling it or manufacturing it.  If I take a secret recipe for a food item, sell it and make money from it, I would have to pay royalties to the company or person from whom I stole it.   

A-921 passed the full Assembly in late 2010.  Its Senate counterpart, however, was amended before being voted out of Committee, so the Assembly will need to vote on the amended version before it heads to the Governor’s desk.   

New Jersey is, of course, among a minority of states which have not passed the Trade Secrets Act.  More information about the Act can be found in the New Jersey Law Journal and on the Legislature’s homepage. 

Assemblyman Cryan: “Everybody wins if we curb frivolous lawsuits."

One thing is clear: NJ's hospitality industry could be severely impacted by Voss v.  Tranquilino.

Here are some highlights from Assembly Majority Leader Joseph Cryan’s (D-Union) keynote address at NJLRA’s annual Fall Membership Luncheon:

"As much as we try to help new businesses establish, hire people and flourish, we need to devote the same sort of efforts to making sure existing businesses and industries flourish. We all know that tort reform goes a long way to removing the obstacles that exist and actually prevent businesses and industries from growing.

"We've got to be able to give businesses and physicians and those who are impacted by what we [legislators] do some stability and some certainty in the marketplace. And hopefully together we can do that."

Cryan told the audience about his personal experience with lawsuit abuse in Middlesex County. His family-operated establishment was the third and largest of three establishments visited by an intoxicated patron. The patron, who was refused service by Cryan's establishment, fled as an employee attempted to call him cab and caused a fatal automobile accident. Cryan's establishment - the only establishment to refuse him service - ended up paying out half a million dollars in claims.

"I look at this recent Voss decision, for example, and the Supreme Court is going to potentially take down the whole hospitality industry... Have we kind of lost our way a little bit in terms of who's responsible for what?

The case refers to the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Voss v. Tranquilino earlier this year, which permitted an Ocean County motorcyclist to sue the establishment which served him for bodily injuries he sustained while driving under the influence.

"Tort reform isn't a Republican or Democrat issue - it's an economic issue," said Marcus Rayner, NJLRA’s executive director.

"That's why it's important to urge the legislature to support measures like A-3333/S-2855, which would help protect honest businesses from frivolous litigation," Rayner said.

Van Drew introduces Senate version of legislation to reverse Voss v. Tranquilino

Late last month, Senator Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May) introduced S-3028.  Like its companion bill, A-4228, this legislation would reverse the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Voss  v. Tranquilino, which allowed a motorcyclist to sue the bar for injuries he sustained while driving drunk.  

The text isn’t available on the Legislature’s website as of today, but an earlier report in the Asbury Park Press outlines some of its parameters.

Tort Reform in New Jersey, Round 1 (2002 – 2003)

We get a lot of questions about tort reform efforts pre-NJLRA, particularly with respect to medical malpractice reform.  Here is a roundup of what occurred in New Jersey, 2002-2003.  Note: Since this effort predates NJLRA’s founding, please chime in with anything else that should be included. 

• Omnibus legislation was introduced in December 2002 with the sponsorship of then-Assembly Majority Leader Joe Roberts.  The legislation, A50, was intended to address escalating medical malpractice insurance premiums and concerns over a consequential shortage of doctors in New Jersey.  Liability insurance for New Jersey’s hospitals had increased an average of 50 percent in just the previous year.  Dubbed the “Patients First Act,” A50 called for a $300,000 cap on non-economic damages for physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, while allowing plaintiffs to collect up to $1 million in “pain and suffering” from a special state fund; tightening the statute of limitations during which an individual could file a malpractice claim; create discoverability protections and medical error reporting to help healthcare providers improve patient safety; provide a “good Samaritan clause” for physicians providing emergency care on a volunteer basis. 

• December 12, 2002: A50 clears Assembly Health and Human Services Committee; Assembly Banking and Insurance Committee, and Assembly Appropriations Committee before being passed by the full Assembly, 44-20-12.  The $300,000 cap on non-economic damages for physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals is removed.

• January 2003: Unhappy with the removal of the $300,000 cap, physician groups organize a three-day “work stoppage,” despite pleas from legislative sponsors for restraint.

• March 2003: The Senate removes the $300,000 non-economic cap provision from its companion bill, S2174, before releasing it from the Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizens Committee with additional amendments.  It is passed by the full Senate, 32-5.

• April 2003: Doctors’ associations threaten a second work-stoppage if the cap is not reinstated.

• June 30, 2003: With heavy lobbying by the Trial Lawyers Association (now called the “American Association for Justice”) and waning physician sympathy, A50/S2174 dies on concurrence in the Assembly. 

Cryan will be keynote speaker at NJLRA Membership Luncheon

Assembly Majority Leader Joseph Cryan (D-Union) will be the keynote speaker at NJLRA’s annual Fall Membership Luncheon. 

The event will take place at the Trenton Country Club in West Trenton on Tuesday, September 13, at noon. 

Click here to RSVP now.  It’s free, but an RSVP is required.  We hope to see you there!

Anti-bullying law puts taxpayers at risk

We all remember Tyler Clementi’s tragic suicide last year, which propelled the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act through the Legislature.  Just about everyone agrees that addressing student bullying is a positive step toward deterring the conditions which contributed to this young man’s untimely death.   But as schools across New Jersey prepare to reopen next month, the unintended consequences of this law may end up may end up exposing school districts to costly liability that taxpayers will be forced to bear. 

According to a recent report in NJ Spotlight, online and out-of-school liability emerged as an area of concern for school personnel during required training sessions held over the summer.  Where to draw the line between parental and school responsibility has been a subject of debate for many years.  With the implementation of the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act, however, this responsibility and liabilities associated with it have been placed solely on school districts and the taxpayers which fund them.  Trial lawyers in New Jersey have essentially been given a blank check to sue school districts on behalf of bullied children, no matter how ambiguous the term “bullying” may be. 

School districts have an obligation to enforce New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination and to be responsive to student bullying.  But civil liability ultimately belongs on the backs of bullies, not taxpayers. 

It’s something school districts will have to come to grips with this school year when the law goes into effect.  Check out my letter-to-the-editor about it in the Courier News. 

Strassel: The Senate’s Lawsuit Factory

In case you missed it, Kimberley A.  Strassel details trial lawyers’ attempts to use a controversial case to block mandatory arbitration clauses (The Senate’s Lawsuit Factory, The Wall Street Journal, 7/22/11).  Some how-to highlights:

1) Identify a law or regulation that prevents trial lawyers from cashing in.

2) Identify a "victim" of this law or regulation.

3) Get congressional allies to turn said victim into a cause célèbre.

4) Use ensuing moral outrage to get the law or regulation changed.

5) Buy a yacht.

Is suing the bar a new drunk driving trend?

It’s been fifteen months since we brought you the case of Voss v. Tranquilino.  You’ll recall that the plaintiff in this case, Ocean County resident Fredrick Voss, had a blood alcohol level nearly two and a half times the legal limit when he plowed his motorcycle into a car (“Drive drunk, hurt yourself, and blame someone else, 4/29/10).  He later sued Tiffany’s Restaurant, where he had consumed the alcohol, for his injuries.  The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to determine whether a 1997 Motor Vehicle law, which barred drunken drivers from collecting damages for their injuries, trumped an earlier law allowing those who suffer a loss (usually the innocent involved) to sue the licensed beverage server. 

In the year since, the Court actually ruled in favor of Voss, essentially giving a green light to a person charged with a DUI to sue a tavern owner for any injuries they sustain in the process of driving drunk (an illegal act, last I checked). 

It doesn’t stop there, either.  The parents of a young man who was killed after driving home from a popular Hamilton bar are now suing the establishment for wrongful death.  The loss of a child is always tragic, irrespective of the means.  But usually when “drunken driver” is mentioned in conjunction with “wrongful death,” it’s the family of an innocent motorist who is suing the drunk driver – not the family of the drunk driver suing the bar. 

What we’re seeing now, in the fifteen months since the New Jersey Supreme Court decided to hear the Voss case, is a disturbing push to use New Jersey’s civil justice system to compensate criminal behavior.  Assemblyman John Amodeo introduced legislation to overturn the Court’s decision in Voss v. Tranquilino¸ and prevent drunken drivers from suing others for injuries they cause themselves.  The bill number is A-4228. 

It’s unfortunate but necessary that the Legislature clarifies that New Jersey’s legal system should not reward illegal behavior.   

Session Recap

It’s been a quiet week for civil justice reform.  Unsurprising, since failed attempts to override some of the Governor’s vetoes, school funding, and speculation over which congressional district will be eliminated during redistricting have dominated New Jersey politics.

 To recap the 2010-2011 Session thus far, NJLRA supports the following bills:

 

Read NJLRA’s Op-Ed in today’s Star-Ledger

Legislation is necessary to limit suits in New Jersey

By Marcus Rayner

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued a decision allowing a motorcyclist to sue a restaurant that served him alcohol after he was injured when he crashed into a car while driving drunk.

The case stems from a 2006 incident in which 46-year-old Brick resident Fredrick Voss decided to drive home after drinking at Tiffany’s restaurant in Toms River. He pleaded guilty to a DUI charge after he rode the motorcycle through a red light and into a car. His blood alcohol level was nearly 21⁄2 times the legal limit.

Pleading guilty to a DUI charge might prompt most people to accept responsibility for endangering themselves and others. In a nod to how notions of personal responsibility — and our courts’ appetite for lawsuits — have changed, Voss took to court Tiffany’s restaurant and Kristoffe Tranquilino, the driver of the car he hit.

Link. 

APP: Legislation Would Limit Suits by Drunken Drivers

Kathleen Hopkins wrote about A-4228 in the Asbury Park Press over the weekend.  This is the legislation that would prevent drunken drivers from suing restaurateurs who serve them alcohol from injuries they sustain while driving drunk (a la Voss v. Tranquilino). 

We’ll link to A-4228 once it’s available on the legislative website. 

Legislation to Overturn Voss v. Tranquilino Decision Introduced

NJLRA issued the following statement regarding A-4228, which would prohibit drunken drivers from suing restaurateurs for injuries they sustain while driving under the influence of alcohol:

"The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Voss v. Tranquilino allows a convicted drunk driver to use our court system to profit from the poor choices he made, at the expense of New Jersey's business community.  Common sense is being downgraded to the point where drunk drivers can relinquish personal responsibility by collecting monetary damages from the restaurateur serving them drinks. 

"This decision was a kick in the gut to New Jersey's restaurateurs.  A-4228 is a first step toward protecting our business community from the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the law. 

"The Court clearly defied the will of the legislature when issuing this decision, and I encourage leadership in both houses to consider A-4228 as soon as possible. 

The case stems from a 2006 incident in which Fredrick Voss crashed his motorcycle into a car and injured himself.  His blood alcohol level was nearly two-and-a-half times the legal limit.  He pled guilty to a DWI charge but later filed suit against Tiffany's Restaurant in Toms River under the Dram Shop Act.     The New Jersey Supreme Court sided with Voss in a 5-2 decision, stating that existing law does not explicitly bar drunken drivers for suing for their own injuries. 

The legislation is sponsored by Assemblyman John Amodeo (R- Atlantic County). 

A-4135 Introduced in the Assembly

As we know, New Jersey is a class action lawsuit magnet.  A piece of legislation introduced by Assemblymen Gary Chiusano and John Wisniewski, however, would bring more fairness to the process. 

Imagine the following scenario: A New Jersey-based business becomes entangled in a product liability lawsuit.  The plaintiff’s attorneys decide to file suit on behalf of everyone who bought a particular product, whether they were injured or not, and oftentimes without their knowledge.  The judge certifies the group of unidentified consumers as a class, and a class-action lawsuit ensues, over defense objections to the certification.  In our scenario, our business needs to go through the entire trial before it can appeal the judge’s determination of a class. 

The legislation introduced by Assemblymen Chiusano and Wisniewski, however, would grant an immediate right to interlocutory appeal.  In reality, a class certification usually means the end of the road for New Jersey civil defendants, because trying such cases is simply too expensive and burdensome.  Many settle even if there is an error in certifying the class.  A-4135 spares all parties time and expense. 

The Big Apple Needs Big Reform

A lot of tort reform –inspiring activity has been taking place across in New York these days. 

First, there is judge-directed negotiation, an approach to resolving medical malpractice cases without the years of traditional legal overhead.  As part of President Obama’s pledge to address skyrocketing medical malpractice litigation costs, New York City received a federal grant for a type of mediation between a trained judge and attorneys for each side.  Its intent is to get judges involved earlier and actively encourage settlements, which prompts quicker resolution and fewer years in an expensive limbo for the parties involved.  There are no appeals, and the settlements are often a shadow of what a plaintiff might receive in court.  A positive consequence is that lawyers may become more hesitant to pursue a case that is marginal.  A negative consequence, however, is that doctors may still feel pressured to settle, even when they haven’t been negligent. 

Next, the New York State Assembly passed A-694, a complex piece of legislation supported by trial lawyers.  It seeks to overturn the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in the case of Arons v. Jutkowitz. If enacted, opponents say, the cost of medical malpractice insurance will likely increase for New York’s physicians.   More information about the legislation can be found here. 

The last is sobering.  New York City doled out an astounding $521 million in personal injury and property damage lawsuits in 2010.  It’s sort of like a $57.88 lawsuit insurance policy for each of the city’s 9 million residents.  And this figure is seven percent lower than it was in 2009!

NJLRA live: Rayner on FOX News Channel

NJLRA Executive Director Marcus Rayner sat down with Gretchen Carlson to talk about how the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Voss v. Tranquilino will impact the Garden State.  

Rayner, live

In case you missed it…

NJLRA's Marcus Rayner was on Fox & Friends this morning with Gretchen Carlson to discuss the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Voss v. Tranquilino and what it means for Garden State businesses and bar patrons.  We’ll post the clip as soon as we get it. 

NJ Supreme Court finds that intoxicated patrons can sue businesses for injuries they sustain

Last year, Fredrick Voss made headlines for suing a Toms River restaurant for injuries he sustained after crashing his motorcycle while intoxicated.

Today, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of… Voss!  Only Justices Albin and Rivera-Soto dissented. 

Marcus Rayner, executive director of the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance (NJLRA), issued the following statement in response to the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision, in Voss v. Tranquilino, which upheld an appellate court decision to permit persons convicted of a DUI offense to sue restaurants for injuries they cause to themselves:

"The Court today has once again defied the will of the legislature to the detriment of business and common sense in New Jersey.  The legislature sought, in plain language, to bar suits against bars and restaurants by intoxicated patrons under the motor vehicle laws of this state. Today drunk drivers can minimize personal responsibility for their actions and sue the restaurateurs of New Jersey for serving them drinks.

“Common sense tells us that pleading guilty to driving while intoxicated shouldn’t legally transfer responsibility from one party to another.  Adults who choose to break the law and endanger others should not have the ability to use our civil court system to collect monetary damages at the expense of New Jersey’s business community. 

The case stems from a 2006 incident in which Fredrick Voss crashed his motorcycle into a car and injured himself.  His blood alcohol level was nearly two-and-a-half times the legal limit.  He pled guilty to a DWI charge but later filed suit against Tiffany’s Restaurant in Toms River under the Dram Shop Act.   

The Court effectively upheld an appellate court's ruling, which found that an intoxicated motorist can sue a bar or restaurant for their own injuries resulting from being overserved alcohol at that bar or restaurant, even if they plead guilty to a DWI charge.  The Court upheld the notion that the Dram Shop Act (which established this liability for restaurants, though it was typically exercised by those innocently injured) supersedes motor vehicle law in NJ, which holds that drunk drivers may not sue the bar or restaurant.

A copy of the Court’s decision can be found on NJLRA’s website.

NJ is one of the “Worst States for Business”

Chief Executive Magazine released its 2011 survey of the worst states for business.  Unsurprisingly, Texas is ranked best, and New Jersey, New York, Illinois and California are the bottom four.  New Jersey held steady at #47 for the third consecutive year.

It will also come as no surprise that many states in the top 10 continue to address civil justice reform issues (beneficial reforms are under legislative consideration in 5 of the top 10 states).

You can read Chief Executive Magazine’s full article and methodology here, or click on the map below for an interactive map of the best and worst states for business. 

Legislative Update

The Assembly held two bills opposed by NJLRA, NJBIA, and other business groups originally scheduled for consideration on Monday. 

A-3433 would prohibit consumer contracts from requiring that arbitration take place outside of New Jersey.  NJLRA maintains that arbitration offers a meaningful and effective forum for resolving disputes without litigation. 

The Assembly was also scheduled to consider A-3434, which would require a review of a consumer contract for unconscionability and set the standard for review.  The Assembly adopted amendments to specify that the bill would not apply to arbitrations conducted or administered by a self-regulatory organization; however, the bill was held.  It may also be in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s April 27, 2011 decision in AT&T vs. Concepcion. 

Assemblyman Dominick DiCicco praised the decision to hold “bad business bills” A-3433 and A-3434, which he called the “first step in getting [the Legislature’s] priorities straight.”

South Jersey Towns Sing a Familiar Tune

We’ve said it many times before: taxpayers lose when frivolous litigation is filed against government entities. 

Money that could be spent on maintaining municipal services ends up being spent on attorney’s fees, even when a plaintiff’s damages aren’t apparent or quantifiable. 

The Gloucester County Times reported over the weekend that several South Jersey towns are supporting legislation they say will “make lawyers think twice about filing any old lawsuit.” S-2404, sponsored by Senator Sean Kean (R-Monmouth) would cap the attorney fee awards that public entities are required to pay when a plaintiff receives a judgment. 

The Municipal Excess Liability (MEL) Joint Insurance Fund recently released a study which showed a dramatic cost increase among closed claims over the last ten years.  Fee-shifting laws often require the public entity to pay for the plaintiff’s legal fees as well as its own, leaving little disincentive for an attorney to file suit for small damages or unquantifiable cases. 

S-2404 would cap attorney fee awards that public entities are required to pay at $50,000 if the plaintiff is awarded $50,000 or less.  If the plaintiff is awarded more than $50,000, the attorney’s fees could not exceed that amount.  For the average New Jersey town, this is a lot of money!

There is no Assembly version of S-2404 currently.