Notte v. Merchants Mutual Insurance Co. Book Reviews

Notte v. Merchants Mutual Insurance Co. by Supreme Court of New Jersey Book Summary

Argued November 7, 2005 The clear language of Rule 4:9-3, the ""relation back"" rule, provides that ""[w]henever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading[.]"" In this appeal, we reaffirm the plain import of the Rule and hold that, under the circumstances present here, the causes of action pled in the corrected amended complaint by plaintiff Robert Pantano (Pantano) against defendants Merchants Mutual Insurance Company (Merchants) and William Wolfe (Wolfe) relate back to the date of the filing of the original complaint. However, any analysis under Rule 4:9-3 also implicates Rule 4:9-1, under which a request to amend a pleading will be denied either if prejudice will inure to the party opposing the amendment or if the amended pleading itself is without legal merit, that is, if the amendment as proposed would be futile. The Appellate Division held, and we agree, that Merchants and Wolfe are not prejudiced by the pleading amendment sought by Pantano. However, Merchants and Wolfe also allege that the proposed amended claims against them have been statutorily waived and, hence, any proposed amendment would be futile. Because the Appellate Division did not address the ""futility"" prong of the ""relation back"" test, we remand this case to the Appellate Division.

👋 Do you love Notte v. Merchants Mutual Insurance Co. books? Please share your friends!

Notte v. Merchants Mutual Insurance Co. (Supreme Court of New Jersey) Book Reviews 2024

Supreme Court of New Jersey - Notte v. Merchants Mutual Insurance Co. Discussions & Comments

Have you read this book yet? What do you think about Notte v. Merchants Mutual Insurance Co. by Supreme Court of New Jersey book? Ask the bookpedia.co community a question about Notte v. Merchants Mutual Insurance Co.!