JACQUELINE TOSI v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6477-04T56477-04T5

JACQUELINE TOSI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Respondent.

__________________________________

 

Argued October 16, 2006 - Decided November 2, 2006

Before Judges S.L. Reisner and C.L. Miniman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-578-05.

Jacqueline Tosi, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Jessica Ann Schlee argued the cause for respondent (Connell, Connell & Camassa, attorneys; Ronald S. Yuro, of counsel; Jessica Ann Schlee, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Jacqueline Tosi appeals from the grant of a R. 4:6-2(e) motion by defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Plaintiff's complaint seeking to vacate an arbitration award was dismissed with prejudice. Arguably, the motion was properly granted because the complaint filed by plaintiff did not set forth any of the grounds for appeal from an arbitration award that are enumerated in N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8. Plaintiff apparently seeks the limited judicial review that is available under this statute. At oral argument, defendant conceded that the dismissal should have been without prejudice to plaintiff's right to revise her complaint.

In Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 771-72 (1989), the Supreme Court cautioned:

The importance of today's decision lies not so much in its explication of the principles of tortious interference and defamation as in its signal to trial courts to approach with great caution applications for dismissal under Rule 4:6-2(e) for failure of a complaint to state a claim on which relief may be granted. We have sought to make clear that such motions, almost always brought at the very earliest stage of the litigation, should be granted in only the rarest of instances. If a complaint must be dismissed after it has been accorded the kind of meticulous and indulgent examination counselled in this opinion, then, barring any other impediment such as a statute of limitations, the dismissal should be without prejudice to a plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint.

Because the dismissal here was with prejudice, contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court in Printing Mart, we hereby vacate the "with prejudice" portion of the order and grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in the Law Division within three weeks of the date of this decision.

Reversed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-6477-04T5

November 2, 2006