In a precedential decision issued on June 17, 2019, the Appellate Division expanded the categories of damages that a homeowner may recover from a negligent party when the homeowner has been displaced from his or her home to allow for property damage to be repaired. In Certain Underwriters at Lloyds Subscribing to Policy PLH-0013397 v. PSE&G, several homeowners were displaced from their homes for ten months after a power line fell and caused significant fire damage to their homes. While the homeowners were reimbursed by their homeowner’s insurance for the repair costs and incidental costs relating to their stays at motels during the period of displacement, they also sought damages against PSE&G for “inconvenience” and the loss of the use of their homes.
The trial court dismissed the homeowners’ claims for additional compensation, but the Appellate Division reversed. The Appellate Division held that the homeowners were not precluded from seeking additional damages resulting from the loss of the use of their homes or other reasonable damages caused by the inconvenience, even if the homeowners could not precisely measure such losses. The court observed that one family was forced to move on multiple occasions, was confined to a motel during the Thanksgiving holiday, was without personal items of sentimental value, and endured the circumstances surrounding the premature birth of a child without the comfort of their own home. Another family was forced to eat most meals from fast-food chains because the motel had no kitchen facilities, had problems sleeping because of noise, and otherwise had their normal routine disrupted. The court remanded the matter for trial for a jury to decide if the homeowners should be further compensated based on these inconveniences.
While this matter did not involve claims against a developer for alleged construction defects, developers often make, or consider making, arrangements with homeowners to temporarily live elsewhere while they repair or correct the allegedly defective or deficient work performed by their design professionals or retained contractors. Developers should be aware that New Jersey homeowners can seek, and may ultimately be entitled to, a host of damages relating to their displacement, including circumstances that adversely impacted their quality of life. Developers should consider not only providing for suitable lodging and meals, but also other amenities that the homeowner might otherwise have enjoyed to reduce the risk of a lawsuit seeking loss of use or “inconvenience” damages or at least limit the damages that can be sought if a lawsuit is later filed.
If you have questions about this case or construction defects in New Jersey, contact Don Taylor at 732.855.6434 or Dan Kluska at 732.855.6033.
Tags: Certain Underwriters at Lloyds Subscribing to Policy PLH-0013397 v. PSE&G • Construction Defects
The postings on this blog were created for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. Although we attempt to ensure that the postings are complete, accurate, and current as of the time of publication, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness. The information in this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.
This blog may contain links to independent third party websites and services, including social media. We provide these links for your convenience, and you access them at your own risk. We have no control over and do not monitor the content or policies (including privacy policies) of these third-party websites and have no responsibility for, and no liability with respect to, their content, accuracy, or reliability. Unless expressly stated, we do not endorse any of the linked websites or any product, service, or publication referenced herein or therein. We will remove a link to any site from this blog upon request of the linked entity.
We grant permission to readers to link to this blog so long as this blog is not misrepresented. This site is not sponsored or associated with any other site unless so identified.
If you wish for Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., to consider representing you, please obtain contact information from the Contact Us area of this blog or go to the firm’s website at www.wilentz.com. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. However, the authors of Wilentz blogs are licensed only in New Jersey and/or New York and do not wish to represent anyone who viewed this site in a state where the site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.