Issue: WHETHER DEFENDANTS ARE ESTOPPED TO ASSERT THE BAR OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW.
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Statute of limitations; Equitable estoppel |
| Jurisdiction: | New Jersey |
| Cited Cases: | 301 N.J. Super. 262; 56 N.J. 514; 138 N.J. 2; 22 N.J. 341; 284 N.J. Super. 67; 254 N.J. Super. 370 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 06/01/2001 |
New Jersey courts have a long history of refusing to permit reliance on the statute of limitations when the defendant’s conduct makes the use of this defense inequitable. See Deluxe Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Hyundai Eng’g & Constr. Co., 254 N.J. Super. 370, 378 (App. Div. 1992) (citing Lopez, 62 N.J. at 275 n.2).
In State ex rel. Parsons v. United States Steel Corp., 22 N.J. 341, 358‑59 (1956), the defendant was equitably estopped to raise a statute of limitations defense when it failed to fulfill a legal duty to notify the State of escheatable property within its possession. And in Dunn v. Borough of Mountainside, 301 N.J. Super. 262, 276‑77 (App. Div. 1997), the Court held that a police officer who sexually assaulted a female driver whom he stopped, ostensibly to ticket her for speeding, was estopped from asserting the statute of limitations against her damage action because his dereliction in the performance of his official duty to report his crime had contributed to her inability to identify her assailant and to her consequent delay in filing suit. Finally, in Peloso v. Hartford Insurance Co., 56 N.J. 514 (1970), the Court applied the doctrine of estoppel when the defendant used settlement negotiations to lull the plaintiff into delaying the filing of the action.
See Super. 417, 418 (App. Div. 1979).
Intent is not an essential element of a […]