Trenton, NJPlaintiffs who bring home warranty lawsuits against home warranty companies commonly assert allegations of shoddy workmanship, delays or denials of claims. However in this case, the plaintiff alleged violations to New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act and Truth in Consumer Contract, Warrant and Notice Act with regard to a contract that was allegedly misleading in stated coverage periods, amongst other claims.
The home warranty lawsuit went all the way to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which has agreed to review the case.
According to Law360 12/01/17) plaintiff Amanda Kernahan entered into a home warranty service agreement with defendants Home Warranty Administrator of Florida Inc. and Choice Home Warranty. The agreement, initiated in 2015, was intended to cover the repair, or replacement of home appliances and systems (although what the ‘systems’ were, were not identified).
In her home warranty insurance lawsuit, Kernahan stated that the cover page of the agreement reflected a coverage period that extended from April 23, 2015 through to October 23, 2018 – a period of 42 months, or three and one-half years.
However, according to Kernahan the second page of the home warranty service contract specified a coverage period that reflected a time frame different from that reflected on the contract cover page.
“[C]overage starts 30 days after acceptance of application by Us [sic] and receipt of applicable contract fees and continues for 365 days from that date,” according to court records. That suggests a coverage period of just over a year, or less than a third of the coverage period suggested by the cover page of the contract.
The plaintiff also asserted that the final page of the contract document, entitled ‘Mediation,’ failed to spell out that in accepting the contract Kernahan was waiving her right to bring a home warranty lawsuit.
She asserted bad faith insurance, amongst other claims.
The defendants, according to court documents attempted to have the case dismissed or, alternatively to force arbitration as outlined in the arbitration provisions in the contract.
The trial court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, or alternatively compel arbitration. Defendants appealed, and in June a two-judge appellate panel upheld the trial court’s ruling that the arbitration clause in Kernahan’s agreement could not be enforced under requirements established by Atalese v. US Legal Services Group LP. In that case, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that such provisions needed to be clear and not ambiguous in any way.
The appellate panel determined that arbitration provisions in Kernahan’s contract were ambiguous, and unclear.
But the defendants were not done, and took their case all the way to the New Jersey Supreme Court. On Friday, December 1 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Stay tuned.
The home warranty lawsuit is Amanda Kernahan v. Home Warranty Administrator of Florida Inc. et al., Case No. A-1355-16T4, in the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
If you or a loved one have suffered losses in this case, please click the link below and your complaint will be sent to a real estate lawyer who may evaluate your Home Warranty Insurance claim at no cost or obligation.