Opinion ID: 2645901
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Dismiss the Design Defect Claim

Text: “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s granting of a motion to dismiss. Institutional Invs. Grp. v. Avaya, Inc, 564 F.3d 242, 251 (3d Cir. 2009). The Affidavit of Merit Statute requires a plaintiff in a personal injury action, alleging negligence or malpractice by a licensed person, to provide an affidavit from a different licensed person that states that there is a reasonable likelihood that the alleged conduct fell outside acceptable professional or occupational standards. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:53A-27. Failure to provide the affidavit is deemed a failure to state a cause of action, id. § 2A:53A-29, and a dismissal under the statute is with prejudice. Cornblatt v. Barow, 708 A.2d 401, 413 (N.J. 1998). Architects are included in the statute’s list of “licensed persons.” Id. § 2A:53A-26. In determining whether an affidavit of merit is required, courts must consider (1) whether the action is for damages for personal injuries, (2) whether the action is for malpractice or negligence, and (3) whether the care, skill, or knowledge exercised or exhibited that is the subject of the complaint fell outside acceptable professional or occupational standards. Couri v. Gardner, 801 A.2d 1134, 1137 (N.J. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Here, the first two elements are met because Calender’s action is for damages for personal injuries as a result of malpractice or 3 negligence. The third element is also met because the action alleges negligence on the part of NVR’s architect in designing the attic access panel/opening. As the District Court found, the claim is essentially one for professional malpractice or negligence in the field of architecture. Pleading or demonstrating this claim would require expert testimony from an architect, engineer, or comparable licensed person. Whether Calender’s claim is characterized as one for professional negligence or malpractice, or one for strict product liability, we agree with the District Court that Calender is necessarily challenging architectural designs and plans—plans that only a licensed architect would be able to produce. We conclude that Calender’s design defect claim meets all three Couri factors and, accordingly, the Affidavit of Merit statute applies. We will therefore affirm the District Court’s dismissal of the design defect claim for plaintiff’s failure to timely provide the required affidavit of merit.