In this class action against a finance company, the Appellate Division (1) affirmed certification of a class for statutory damages under the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA); (2) upheld an aggretate civil penalty of $1,684,500 awarded to the class; and (3) upheld an injunction prohibiting future violations of the Door-to-Door Retail Installment Sales Act (DDRISA) and the Retail Installment Sales Act (RISA) in future contracts.
The venue section of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §1692i, requires that debt collection actions be filed either in the county where the debtor lives or in the county where the debtor signed the contract underlying the debt.
An assignee of a retail installment sales contract can be held liable under the Consumer Fraud Act for its unconscionable commercial practices and activities related to its repossession and collection practices in connection with the performance of the retail installment sales contract.
As long as a consumer can show a loss that is quantifiable and measurable, the consumer does not have to demand a refund of any overcharge before filing suit to satisfy the requirement of an "ascertainable loss" under the Consumer Fraud Act. Furthermore, to satisfy the requirements of the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, a consumer does not have to allege that the contract language is confusing; such a provision is a part of the Plain Language Act, which is separate and distinct from the TCCWNA.
Patients who had undergone surgical insertion of contraceptive capsules brought products liability action against manufacturer of drug. The Supreme Court held that: (1) “learned intermediary” doctrine does not apply to direct marketing of prescription drugs to consumer; (2) rebuttable presumption exists that when manufacturer complies with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advertising, labeling, and warning requirements, manufacturer has satisfied its duty to warn consumer about potentially harmful side effects of its product; and (3) when drug manufacturer has advertised its drug directly to consumers (DTC), role of physician in prescribing drugs does not break the chain of causation for manufacturer's failure to warn patient of harmful side effects.
Patient who suffered injuries when her stomach was punctured during a laparoscopi tubal ligation brought medical malpractice action against doctor. The Superior Court, Law Division, Union County, entered judgment for doctor, and appeal was taken. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, held that trial court committed reversible error when, after presented with jury's questions honing in on “exercise of judgment” charge, it simply re-read the charge, rather than refining charge by separating out what aspects of surgery involved judgment and what did not.
Patient filed medical malpractice claim against physicians for prescribing and administering a tetracycline derivative drug to her when she was a small child, which resulted in significant discoloration of her permanent teeth. The Superior Court, Law Division, Middlesex County, found claim barred by applicable statute of limitations, and plaintiff appealed. The Superior Court, Appellate Division held that hearing was necessary to determine whether discovery rule applied, in light of evidence indicating that, although patient was aware of causation in fact, she was allegedly unaware that there may have been fault.
