In Salve Chipola, III v. Sean Flannery (A-2-24/088836) (Decided August 7, 2025), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to defamation claims also applies to false light claims.
According to the Court, the overlap between the causes of action, in conjunction with the practical considerations and free speech protections, mandates that false light be subject to the same one-year statute of limitations as defamation.
Facts of Salve Chipola, III v. Sean Flannery
In January 2020, plaintiff Salve Chipola attended a Clearview Regional High School basketball game. Defendant Sean Flannery made statements to a school official alleging that Chipola was a drug dealer and had provided drugs and alcohol to students. When Chipola returned to Clearview for another game, a police officer prevented him from entering and handed him a letter from the school, banning him from school grounds.
Nearly two years later, Chipola sued Flannery for false light invasion of privacy. Chipola claimed that Flannery made false statements about him, harming his reputation and causing him emotional distress. Flannery moved to dismiss, arguing that Chipola filed his complaint outside the applicable one-year statute of limitations for defamation under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-3. Chipola maintained that the proper statute of limitations was set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, which mandates that personal injury actions be commenced within two years.
The trial court granted the motion. It relied on Swan v. Boardwalk Regency Corp., 407 N.J. Super. 108 (App. Div. 2009), which held that the one-year statute of limitations for defamation applied to false light claims. The Appellate Division affirmed.
NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in Salve Chipola, III v. Sean Flannery
The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. “Today, we join the majority of jurisdictions that have considered the matter and rule, consistent with Swan, that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to defamation claims also applies to false light claims,” Justice Hoffman wrote. “We therefore affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division in this matter.”
In reaching its decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court explained that when a cause of action is created by common law or by a statute that is silent as to the appropriate limitations period, courts must determine which of the general limitations periods defined by the Legislature applies to the action. In McGrogan v. Till, 167 N.J. 414 (2001), the Court created a roadmap for determining the appropriate statute of limitations for common law torts where the Legislature has been silent, holding that courts should identify the cause of action to which the tort in question is most closely aligned and look primarily to the conduct underlying the tort to determine commonality.
In this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the conduct and injuries underlying both defamation and false light claims are closely aligned. “The conduct at the heart of both defamation and false light invasion of privacy claims is essentially the same; and holding otherwise would cause false light to engulf the tort of defamation and eradicate the narrowed one-year limitations period that is intended to balance potentially tortious behavior with free speech right,” Justice Hoffman explained.
The New Jersey Supreme Court further determined that applying a longer limitations period to false light would undermine legislative intent. “An expansive statute of limitations for false light claims runs the risk of trivializing, if not eliminating, defamation as a tort where, as here, the alleged comment is defamatory in nature,” Justice Hoffman wrote. “Allowing false light to engulf the intentionally limited one-year statute of limitations in N.J.S.A. 2A:14-3 would also run counter to the express legislative policy that gives speech the protection it needs from vexatious and financially ruinous lawsuits that might stifle and inhibit the expression of ideas that inform and enlighten the public.”