11-2-2988 New York-Connecticut Dev. Corp. v. Blinds-To Go (U.S.) Inc., N.J. Super. App. Div. (Currier, J.A.D.) (25 pp.) In this matter arising out of the construction of a building, we address whether a verdict can be sustained where the jury found that plaintiff, New York-Connecticut Development Corp. (NYCT), breached the pertinent contract, but nevertheless, awarded it damages under a quantum meruit theory. Quantum meruit is a form of quasi-contractual recovery and is “wholly unlike an express or implied-in-fact contract in that it is ‘imposed by the law for the purpose of bringing about justice without reference to the intention of the parties.’” St. Barnabas Med. Ctr. v. Cnty. of Essex, 111 N.J. 67, 79 (1988) (citations omitted). It has long been recognized, however, “that the existence of an express contract excludes the awarding of relief regarding the same subject matter based on quantum meruit.” Kas Oriental Rugs v. Ellman, 394 N.J. Super. 278, 286 (App. Div. 2007). Although a party may plead and pursue alternative, and even inconsistent theories, Kas, supra, 394 N.J. Super. at 287, a party is not entitled to recover on inconsistent theories. Ibid. (emphasis added). Once the jury determined that an express contract existed between the parties, it was erroneous for it to be directed to a consideration of quantum meruit. The jury instructions and verdict sheet both misstated the applicable legal principles of contract law. Consequently, we are constrained to reverse and remand for a new trial. (Approved for Publication)
39-2-2999 Jaclyn Thompson v. Bd. of Trs., Teachers’ Pension & Annty. Fund, N.J. Super. App. Div. (Leone, J.A.D.) (52 pp.) Patterson v. Bd. of Trustees., State Police Ret. Sys., 194 N.J. 29, 34 (2008), held that to obtain accidental disability benefits for a purely mental disability, “[t]he disability must result from direct personal experience of a terrifying or horror-inducing event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a similarly serious threat to the physical integrity of the member or another person.” Following the example of Russo v. Bd. of Trustees., Police & Firemen’s Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14 (2011), the Appellate Division holds the Patterson requirement applies to mental disability arising from incidents involving mental and physical stressors if any physical injury was temporary or minor, despite Caminiti v. Bd. of Trustees., Police & Firemen’s Ret. Sys., 431 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2013). The majority rules that the incidents triggering petitioner’s mental disability did not meet the Patterson requirement and that her diagnosis of PTSD was not dispositive. Judge Ostrer dissents from that ruling. The court rules the incidents were undesigned and unexpected given petitioner’s lack of training. (Approved for Publication)
