third-party claim in New Jersey

2025Although the contents of Internet communications may be even more revealing, both types of information implicate privacy interests. [Reid, 194 N.J. at 398-99 (omission in original) (citation reformatted).] The Court specifically rejected the application of the third-party doctrine employed by federal courts.

2025We acknowledge the expectation of privacy in a cell phone users' location history and movements, and our Supreme Court specifically rejected the third- party doctrine in Reid, 194 N.J. at 399 .

2025Court Rules, cmt. 2.3 on R. 4:7-5 (2020). [Id. at 376 (citations reformatted).] The Court stressed that "where a defendant subject to the [a]ffidavit of [m]erit statute asserts a third-party claim in the nature of contribution or joint tortfeasor liability as against another professional also subject to the statute, no [a]ffidavit of [m]erit is required." Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting Diocese of Metuchen v. Prisco & Edwards, AIA, 374 N.J.

2020The Court notes that the Appellate Division held in another case that 2 no affidavit of merit is required when “a defendant subject to the [a]ffidavit of [m]erit statute asserts a third-party claim in the nature of contribution or joint tortfeasor liability as against another professional also subject to the statute.” Diocese of Metuchen v. Prisco & Edwards, AIA, 374 N.J.

2025See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-45 (1979); see also United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443-44 (1976).

2025In addition, the State argued, under the third-party doctrine, United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 439 (1976), defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information he shared with the ISPs of the casinos when he used their public wireless service to connect with their computer networks.

2018In Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Co. of America, 65 N.J. 474 (1974), the Court recognized an insured's cause of action against its insurer for bad faith failure to settle a third-party claim in certain instances where the insurer rejects a settlement demand within the policy limits and the verdict following trial exceeds the policy limits.

2000Co. of America, 65 N.J. 474 , 323 A. 2d 495 (1974), the Supreme Court held that an insured may recover an amount in excess of the policy limit for a liability insurer's bad faith refusal to settle a third party claim within the policy limits, when the refusal results in a adverse judgment exceeding those limits.

2025See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-45 (1979); see also United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443-44 (1976).

2025Applying the third-party doctrine, it further concluded there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the dialed phone numbers because individuals do not possess a legitimate expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial as all phone users "realize that they must 'convey' phone numbers to the telephone company." Id. at 742 .

2025See State v. Earls, 214 N.J. 564, 568 (2013) (citing State v. Reid, A-1399-24 17 194 N.J. 386, 399 (2008)).

2025Id. at 309-10, 314 .

2025Id. at 314 .

2025Bi- County contends our conclusion in Toll Bros., Inc. v. State, Dep't of Env't Prot., 242 N.J.

2025In Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 206-07 (1981), a Drug Enforcement Administration agent searched the home of Gaultney pursuant to an arrest warrant for Lyons.

2023Because defendant's point I claims were not allegations of substantive legal errors contained completely within the trial record, see State v. Quezada, 402 N.J.

2020Frazier, 142 N.J. at 597 ; Marano v. Schob, 455 N.J.

2019Jones, 230 N.J. at 154, 157-58 (explaining the TCA's notice requirements apply to a plaintiff's claim, a defendant's cross-claim, and a third-party claim against a public entity); see also N.J.S.A. 59:8-1 to -11.

2018See Wood, 206 N.J. at 564 26 A-0754-15T1 (explaining nature of Rova Farms bad faith failure to settle claim); Badiali v. N.J.

2018Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469, 479 (2016); Prudential Prop. & Cas.

2017Citing State v. Douglas, 204 N.J.

2017Plaintiff argues the judge failed to apply the third-party exception to the rule, which states "if the commission of a tort 9 A-2323-15T1 proximately causes litigation with parties other than the tortfeasor, the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages measured by the expense of that litigation with third parties." Jugan v. Friedman, 275 N.J.

2016See, e.g., State v. Rothman, 70 Haw. 546 , 779 P.2d 1, 7 (1989) (recognizing expectation of privacy in “telephone numbers [persons] call on their private lines” and requiring government to obtain warrant before “tap[ping] ... private telephones to obtain such information, or requir[ing] the telephone company to supply such information”); State v. Thompson, 114 Idaho 746 , 760 P.2d 1162, 1167 (1988) (“Since there was no warrant based on probable cause for the installation and use of the pen register in this case, the information obtained by its use should have been excluded from the determinati

2016See, e.g., State v. Rothman, 779 P.2d 1, 7 (Haw. 1989) (recognizing expectation of privacy in “telephone numbers [persons] call on their private lines” and requiring government to obtain warrant before “tap[ping] . . . private telephones to obtain such information, or requir[ing] the telephone company to supply such information”); State v. Thompson, 760 P.2d 1162, 1167 (Idaho 1988) (“Since there was no warrant based on probable cause for the installation and use of the pen register in this case, the information obtained by its use should have been excluded from the determination of probable ca

2016See, e.g., State v. Rothman, 70 Haw. 546 , 779 P.2d 1, 7 (1989) (recognizing expectation of privacy in “telephone numbers [persons] call on their private lines” and requiring government to obtain warrant before “tap[ping] ... private telephones to obtain such information, or requir[ing] the telephone company to supply such information”); State v. Thompson, 114 Idaho 746 , 760 P.2d 1162, 1167 (1988) (“Since there was no warrant based on probable cause for the installation and use of the pen register in this case, the information obtained by its use should have been excluded from the determinati

2016See, e.g., State v. Rothman, 779 P.2d 1, 7 (Haw. 1989) (recognizing expectation of privacy in “telephone numbers [persons] call on their private lines” and requiring government to obtain warrant before “tap[ping] . . . private telephones to obtain such information, or requir[ing] the telephone company to supply such information”); State v. Thompson, 760 P.2d 1162, 1167 (Idaho 1988) (“Since there was no warrant based on probable cause for the installation and use of the pen register in this case, the information obtained by its use should have been excluded from the determination of probable ca