In Twanda Jones v. Morey's Pier Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the notice requirements of the Tort Claims Act apply to cross-claims and third party claims, and forged a practical and equitable solution to situations in which a defendant loses the right to seek contribution due to the plaintiff's delay. It also provides a veritable primer on New Jersey's allocation of liability law, interpreting the right to notice expansively and carefully delineating the interplay of several laws impacted by that holding.

Eleven-year-old Abiah Jones was killed when she was riding alone and fell from the “Giant Wheel” amusement ride at Morey's Pier. She was on a school trip organized by her charter school, PleasanTech Academy, operated by the PleasanTech Academy Education Association. Her parents first filed suit against several related Morey defendants in Pennsylvania, although the accident occurred in New Jersey and there was no connection to the commonwealth except her father's recent change of address. After the matter was dismissed for forum non conveniens, a wrongful death and survival action was filed in New Jersey two years after Abiah's death. Neither the plaintiffs nor Morey provided the 90 days' notice required by the Tort Clams Act to the association, which enjoys the legislative protection of N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. After the Morey defendants filed a third party claim for contribution and common-law indemnification, PleasanTech moved for summary judgment based on the failure to give notice, but the trial court denied the motion. After the Appellate Division declined interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the Tort Claims Act requires notice of claims against public entities not just for direct suits, but also for cross-claims and third party claims. The claim against a pubic entity must be asserted, and a notice served, within 90 days of the accrual of the cause of action. The Legislature intended for public entities to be able to “promptly investigate claims, correct the conditions or practices that give rise to the claim, prepare a defense and assess the need for reserves.” The statute is “expansively phrased” and, because public entities can be liable only within the limitations of the Tort Claims Act, the court refused to make an exception to the notice provision for cross-claims or third party claims. It therefore held that PleasanTech was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Morey defendants' third party claim.