In Brehme v. Irwin (A-40-23/089025) (Decided January 15, 2025), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that when a plaintiff accepts a final judgment, that party may still appeal if the party can show that (1) it made known its intention to appeal prior to accepting payment of the final judgment and prior to executing the warrant to satisfy judgment, and (2) prevailing on the appellate issue will not in any way impact the final judgment other than to potentially increase it.
Facts of Brehme v. Irwin
Defendant Thomas Irwin rear-ended plaintiff Linda Brehme’s car. Brehme’s Personal Injury Protection (PIP) carrier paid benefits, but not up to the policy limits. Brehme filed a personal injury complaint against Irwin. At trial, Brehme moved to admit into evidence her projected future medical expenses. The trial judge denied the motion because Brehme had not exhausted her PIP limits. The jury awarded Brehme $225,000 “for pain, suffering, disability, impairment and loss of enjoyment of life,” $50,000 for past lost wages, and $0 for future lost earnings.
On July 7, 2022, the judge entered the final judgment. Irwin’s carrier paid the final judgment, which Brehme’s counsel deposited into his trust account. Brehme’s counsel also signed a warrant to satisfy judgment dated July 18, 2022. On July 29, 2022, Brehme’s counsel wrote to the judge stating that he was “attempting to file an appeal regarding the barring of Brehme’s claim for future medical expenses.” On August 8, 2022, Irwin filed the warrant to satisfy judgment with the trial court. That same day, Brehme filed her Notice of Appeal (NOA) from the final judgment.
The Appellate Division dismissed Brehme’s appeal as moot, noting that Brehme “accepted and received the full [final] judgment amount” and later “signed a warrant to satisfy judgment” before indicating her desire to appeal.
NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in Brehme v. Irwin
The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. It held that Brehme’s appeal was property dismissed as moot.
“We hold that when a plaintiff accepts a final judgment, that party may still appeal if the party can show that (1) it made known its intention to appeal prior to accepting payment of the final judgment and prior to executing the warrant to satisfy judgment, and (2) prevailing on the appellate issue will not in any way impact the final judgment other than to potentially increase it,” Justice Douglas M. Fasciale wrote on behalf of the Court.
In reaching its decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court cited its decision in Adolph Gottscho v. American Marking, 26 N.J. 229 (1958), in which the Court clarified that the appealability of a final judgment is a more nuanced issue, particularly when the appeal could serve to increase but not to reduce the amount of the judgment.
“In other words, the court clarified that a party is not estopped from appealing a separable issue, even when a party accepts the benefits of a final judgment, if the only issue raised on appeal would increase the benefit awarded to the party appealing, but not impact the accepted, underlying final judgment,” Justice Fasciale wrote.
The New Jersey Supreme Court went on to hold that Brehme appealed without satisfying either prong. Accordingly, the Appellate Division correctly dismissed the appeal as moot without reaching the merits.
As to the first prong, the Court concluded that Brehme did not make her intention to appeal known prior to accepting payment of the final judgment and prior to executing a warrant to satisfy that judgment. With regard to the second prong, it found that prevailing on the evidentiary appellate issue — whether a plaintiff can admit into evidence future medical expenses in a civil suit even though her PIP limits have not yet been exhausted — would require vacating the final judgment because a claim for future medical expenses is not separable from seeking compensation for pain and suffering. “Thus, even if we concluded that [plaintiff] met prong one, she is unable to show that prevailing on the trial court evidentiary ruling will not impact the final judgment and only potentially increase it,” Justice Fasciale wrote.
“One jury cannot hear evidence relevant to pain and suffering and another jury hear evidence relevant to future medical expenses,” Justice Fasciale added. “Assuming the admissibility of future medical expenses in this case, the two claims—pain and suffering and future medical expenses—would have to be considered simultaneously. Those claims cannot be fairly adjudicated separately.”