Court Opinion

ID: 9637992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:28:56.993379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:58.368307
License: Public Domain

Passman, J.
(dissenting). The majority declines to exercise the relief permitted under B. 4:50-1 and, in so doing, prevents appellant Yuhas from realizing those fruits of litigation which concededly would have been his had he complied with B. 2:4-l or B. 2:4r-4 requiring punctual appeals. While I am ready to concede the importance of administrative convenience, at the same time I am unwilling to refuse the substantive legal claims of a litigant for the sake of procedural technicalities. As was recognized on another occasion,
It should not have to be said again that one of the prime objects of our new judicial system and the rules implementing it was to do away forever with the determination of cases on the basis of procedural niceties to the end that causes may be justly and expeditiously determined on their merits. [Edelstein v. Asbury Park, 51 N. J. Super. 368, 385 (App. Div. 1958)]
*436The rules can be considered a safety valve which provides a compromise between the demands of judicial efficiency and the need to do substantial justice in each case. See Hodgson v. Applegate, 31 N. J. 29, 43 (1959). I must therefore respectfully dissent.
Last year in Motor Club of America Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 66 N. J. 277 (1974), this Court held an “other insurance” exclusion clause in an uninsured motorist liability policy to be invalid. Finding that N. J. S. A. 17:28-l.l required every automobile policy to provide coverage in stated amounts per person and per accident for damages for bodily injury, Judge Conford held that appellant-Phillips was entitled to coverage under a policy issued by the respondent-insurance company. Furthermore, in reversing a determination by the Appellate Division, our Court found that the insurer’s imposed limitation on recovery was contrary to statutory law even where an insured, such as Phillips, had recovered under the policy coverage of the vehicle he was occupying when injured. In the instant case, which was argued before the Appellate Division at the same time, before the same panel and on the same issue as Phillips, the majority has denied the same relief to the appellant and has apparently decided, in Canute-like fashion, that we will go this far and no further.
At common law, the appeal and successful reversal of a (judgment jointly binding upon several persons inured to the benefit of all affected, parties, regardless of whether all ¡such parties pursued appeals. Underlying this principle was an interest in the consistent application of law so that similar cases would command similar results. Such was, in fact, the recent holding of this Court in E & K Agency v. Van Dyke, 60 N. J. 160 (1972). In that case, the denial of a commission to plaintiff-real estate agency as to one defendant was upheld on the basis of a co defendant’s successful challenge to the agency’s right to the commission. This principle of law has also won ready acceptance on *437the federal level as well, Pierce v. Cook & Co., Inc., 518 F. 2d 720 (10 Cir. 1975); Gondeck v. Pan Am. World Airways, 382 U. S. 257, 86 S. Ct. 153, 15 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1965).
The majority would, however, apply the general rule of unavailability of an appellate reversal to nonappealing parties within the facts of the instant case. By distinguishing cases such as E & K Agency and Pierce from that presented by appellant Yuhas, the majority differentiates between cases arising from the same transaction and those arguably having no factual relationship. In effect, the majority would impose the “same transaction or series of transactions” standard found in our Court Rules with regard to consolidation of actions before New Jersey’s trial courts, B. 4:38-1. While the distinction may have been manifested in the factual settings of other cases, it has never received the explicit recognition which the majority would give it. More important, its adoption by the Court would be in derogation of the very basis upon which the Appellate Division decided to hear the instant case and the Phillips case together.
Originally submitted to the Appellate Division for consideration on October 23, 1973, this case was postponed until November 11 upon the request of respondent-Hartford’s attorney John G. Rathman. In a letter to that court, dated September 11, 1973, Mr. Rathman alerted the Appellate Division to the pending nature of the Phillips litigation and suggested postponement of this action in order to permit the court to consider both appeals concurrently. Although not in the record of this case, the interests of justice require our noticing it. This suggestion was founded upon a more expeditious means of resolving the issues presented by both cases and reflects respondent’s own recognition of the inherent similarities of those issues • — ■ a reflection of respondent’s awareness of the identicality of the instant cases and a consent that they be joined for argument.
Lacking the consolidation power afforded to other courts by B. 4:38-1, the Appellate Division invoked its discretionary *438power to have the two cases argued together. While the reasoning behind the court’s decision was left unstated, it was a clear response to appellant’s urging and was apparently premised upon respondent’s arguments which mitigated in favor of hearing Yuhas and Phillips in tandem.
The Appellate Division’s action rendered the instant case virtually indistinguishable from Addiss v. Logan Corp., 23 N. J. 142 (1957), wherein this Court had an opportunity to construe the more explicit and stricter “same transaction” standard of the consolidation rule, B. 4:38-1. Plaintiif-tenants in that case sought recovery of a statutory penalty for alleged rental overcharges. Although they had hied their respective actions in a single complaint, the trial court ordered a severance of their various claims on the grounds that their actions had not arisen from the same transaction. This Court, in upholding their monetary claims, not only vacated the severance order, but found that plaintiffs’ consent to a joint action had rendered the “same transaction” requirement unimportant:
The thought was that R. R. 4:43-1 (concerning consolidation of actions [now R. 4’ :38-l]) required a severance because the actions did not arise out of the same transaction, occurrences or series of transactions or occurrences. But here all parties consented to the concurrent disposition and the severance served only the purpose of gaining additional revenue through filing fees. This court is opposed to unnecessarily burdening the cost of litigation. Our endeavor has been to seek methods to alleviate that burden, not to further encumber it. This attitude is to he reflected throughout our courts, from, the municipal to the appellate level, [23 N. J. 149; emphasis added]
Within the context of the instant case, the necessity of importing a less stringent standard than “same transaction” is even more compelling than in Addiss. In that case, plaintiffs were faced with the mere imposition of possibly unnecessary litigation costs. In the instant ease, the Court’s invocation of a “same transaction” standard may effectively frustrate the relief which was warranted in Phillips and to which Yrrhas should be entitled under E & K Agency. In the latter *439case, the Court, as the majority has done in this case, recognized the identical legal issues which were presented by the two cases before it. Writing for the Court, Justice Mountain said:
Here it has been finally held, after being twice heard at the trial level and twice reviewed on appeal, that plaintiff’s claim is groundless. The basis for the asserted contention against each defendant is the same. It would indeed be a travesty of justice were plaintiff to be allowed to satisfy a substantial claim of this nature against one defendant when the courts of the State have gone to no small pains to reach a deliberate determination that the claim is without merit. Appellate courts of this State, in Une with those of many others, have recognized the responsibility of appellate revieio as including a requirement that the ultimate disposition of a case be fust, not only as to parties directly before the reviewing court but also as to others who loill perforce be affected by the action of the court. This solicitude has been expressly extended to parties to the litigation who have not appealed but who in all justice should be afforded the benefits of the upper court ruling. [60 N. J. at 164-65; emphasis added]
The thought implicit in this statement remains as true today as it did when it was written on what was apparently a different day.
I am not unmindful of the majority’s concern for the other unappealed decisions which may arguably come within the ambit of the Phillips holding. Nonetheless, their number remains unknown, their facts distinguishable and their ultimate resolution unaffected by a decision to apply the Phillips holding to the instant case. Yuhas has properly limited his petition for relief to the facts of his particular case. In conjunction with this, the singular identity of appellant’s case with the Phillips litigation affords us with a convenient line of demarcation by which to limit relief to his particular claim. No such speculative flood of litigation would result were the Court to hold, as I suggest, that the relief afforded in E & K Agency applies to cases heard together on appeal as well as cases consolidated at the trial level. The finger which the majority would somewhat arbitrarily insert into the dike would only serve to prevent *440an innocent litigant from obtaining warranted relief for the sake of averting an all too speculative flood of litigation. I would reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and grant relief to appellant from said judgment under R. 4:50 — 1.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Mountain, Sullivan, Clifford and Schreibeb and Judge Con-ford — 6.
For reversal — Justice Pashman — 1.