The New Jersey Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Salve Chipola, III v. Sean Flannery (088836). The case involves the statute of limitations for false light invasion of privacy claims.
Facts of Chipola v. Flannery
On December 28, 2021, plaintiff Salve Chipola, IIIfiled a complaint against defendant Sean Flannery containing the following allegations: On January 9, 2020, Chipola attended a basketball game at the Clearview Regional High School gym in Harrison. He walked past the defendant, who was speaking with a school staff member and another individual. Five days later, Chipola went to the school to watch another game and a police officer served him with a letter from the school advising him that he was no longer permitted on school grounds. The officer asked Chipola if he was selling drugs to or purchasing alcohol for students, which Chipola denied. Upon reflection, Chipola believed the defendant may have been the genesis of the allegations. After Chipola confronted the defendant via text message, he admitted he had made the accusatory statements about the plaintiff to the school staff member during the January 9 game.
In his suit, Chipola alleged that the defendant either made these statements knowing they were false or in reckless disregard of their falsity and as a result, his “reputation as a drug dealer became publicized throughout the county,” his photograph was posted throughout the county “as a drug dealer” and he was barred from school sporting events, which “created a false public impression of [him] as a drug dealer.” Chipola further alleged that the defendant and other unnamed individuals put his reputation in false light and committed the tort of false light invasion of privacy. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to file within the one-year statute of limitations applicable to false light invasion of privacy claims.
Appellate Division Decision
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, holding that Chipola’s complaint was not filed within the applicable one-year statute of limitations.
In reaching its decision, the appeals court explained that there are four types of invasion of privacy: (1) intrusion on a plaintiff’s “physical solitude or seclusion,” (2) public disclosure of private facts, (3) placing plaintiff in a false light in the public eye, and (4) appropriation of a plaintiff’s name or likeness for the defendant’s benefit. While they share similarities, separate and distinct causes of action subject to different rules.
The Appellate Division went on to find false light claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations, refusing to overturn its prior decision in Swan v. Boardwalk Regency Corp., 407 N.J. Super. 108, 121 (App. Div. 2009). In Swan, the Appellate Division found false light invasion of privacy to be “essentially one of defamation” subject to a one-year statute of limitations; and dissimilar to an intrusion on seclusion, which is an injury to person subject to a two-year statute of limitations; or appropriation, which is an injury to property rights subject to a six-year statute of limitations.
Issues Before the NJ Supreme Court
The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to consider the case on Sept. 9, 2024. The specific issue before the justices is:
Does a claim alleging false light invasion of privacy have a one-year statute of limitations, see Swan v. Boardwalk Regency Corp., 407 N.J. Super. 108 (App. Div 2009)? Oral arguments were held on January 7, 2025. The decision is being closely watched, particularly by the journalism industry. In support of the defendant, the New Jersey Center for Nonprofit Journalism and New Jersey Independent Local News Collective argued, “If the Court were to reverse the Appellate Division’s decision and upend precedent that is fifteen years old, the statute of limitations for defamation claims will effectively become two years because a plaintiff can, as here, evade the ordinary one-year limitations period for defamation by simply calling his defamation claim a ‘false light’ claim.”