TRENTON, N.J. (Legal Newsline) – A company whose employees were injured by a fireball can proceed with allegations of fraud against the company that made an explosion suppression system.
The New Jersey Supreme Court instructed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that way on July 29, finding the Products Liability Act does not bar a Consumer Fraud Act claim alleging express or affirmative misrepresentations.
“The CFA and PLA are intended to govern different conduct and to provide different remedies for such conduct,” Justice Lee Solomon wrote. “There is thus no direct and unavoidable conflict between the CFA and PLA.
“The PLA governs the legal universe of products liability actions as defined in that Act and the CFA applies to fraud and misrepresentation and provides unique remedies intended to root out such conduct.”
Sun Chemical bought an explosion isolation and suppression system from Fike Corporation to prevent explosions in a dust collection system. But in 2012, on the first day it was operational, a fire occurred, an alarm activated but couldn’t be heard and an explosion sent a fireball through the ducts of the dust collection system.
Seven workers were injured, and the company’s property was damaged. It brought a lawsuit under the CFA, but Pike fought it by claiming the allegations should be governed by the PLA.
A district court sided with Pike, but the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling will reinstate the lawsuit.