.

Defense Digest

Watch That First Step! New Jersey Again Addresses The Eternal Battle of Intentional injuries vs. The Exclusive Remedy Doctrine

Defense Digest, Vol. 32, No. 1, March 2026

March 1, 2026

by Robert J. Fitzgerald

Key Points:

  • The exclusive remedy doctrine bars a petitioner from filing a personal injury suit arising out of a workplace injury.
  • The exclusive remedy doctrine can be overcome if a petitioner can prove an “intentional injury.”
  • A petitioner has a high burden of proof under a multi-part analysis to succeed on an intentional injury claim.

The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court once again reaffirmed the strength of the exclusive remedy doctrine of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Statute against alleged intentional injury claims in Jonathan Little v VDM Metals USA, LLC, et al., 2025 WL 3276688 (NJ Super. App. Div. Nov. 25, 2025). In this case, the petitioner worked as a material handler for VDM, a steel manufacturer, when he sustained a compensable fall while exiting a trailer. The petitioner was clearing packing materials on a flat-rack trailer: an open trailer with only two sides – front and back. The petitioner sustained head injuries in the fall and was unable to describe the accident.

The petitioner’s supervisor, Frendly Blas, provided some details leading up to the accident, although he did not witness the fall. Blas testified that, prior to the accident, the petitioner received safety training on fall prevention. Blas estimated the flat-rack trailer bed sat five or six feet off the ground. Further, a "RollaStep Mobile Platform," intended to protect workers from falls whenever they accessed a surface at least four feet off the ground, was near the truck, but not used at the time of the fall. Blas was responsible for ensuring the use of the RollaStep, but did not remember why it was not used during the incident.

An OSHA report confirmed the RollaStep was positioned nearby the trailer. OSHA determined the primary cause of the accident was complacency, as it appeared the RollaStep was generally not used when there were only a few steel plates being unloaded. The petitioner’s expert report in the personal injury case indicated that training records did not show the petitioner received specific training on flat-rack trailers.

The petitioner filed a personal injury action for negligence, gross negligence, and intentional wrongs against the employer, VDM. More specifically, the petitioner asserted VDM failed to provide adequate training, safety measures, and protective equipment, along with not providing enough staff to safely operate the facility. After discovery concluded, VDM won a motion for summary judgment. The trial court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that

VDM’s conduct was an intentional act sufficient to surmount the Act's high bar, and dismissed the petitioner’s complaint.  The court employed the two-part standard test in Laidlow v. Hariton Mach. Co., 790 A.2d 884, 894-896 (N.J. 2002): the court determined the petitioner had not established his injuries were substantially certain to occur or fell outside the "facts of life" attendant to industrial employment.

On appeal, the petitioner argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, as he established sufficient facts to show the defendant's intentional conduct. The petitioner contended that the record contained facts sufficient to show that adequate training was not provided related to unloading the flat-rack trailer or protecting his safety by using the RollaStep safety measure. Thus, claiming the fall from an elevated surface could not be a fact of industrial life for someone that finished and packed material.

The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, noting that the intentional wrong exception in Laidlow is interpreted very narrowly so that as many work-related injury claims as possible can be processed exclusively within the workers' compensation system. Thereunder, to successfully prove an intentional injury claim the petitioner must prove:

  1. that the employer knew that its actions are substantially certain to result in injury or death to the employee; and
  2. the resulting injury and the circumstances of its infliction on the worker must be

(a) more than a fact of life of industrial employment and (b) plainly beyond

anything the legislature intended the Act to immunize.

Laidlow, 790 A.2d at 894.

Further, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing both the "conduct" and "context" prongs. To satisfy the conduct requirement, a petitioner must show a defendant acted with "substantial certainty” that injury or death would result. Again, mere knowledge and appreciation of a risk is insufficient.

In this case, the court noted VDM failed to utilize the RollaStep during small unloading jobs, and that OSHA concluded that the defendant failed to provide the RollaStep due to "complacency."  However, the court also noted there was no evidence to suggest any employees previously fell from a trailer while unloading it. Further, the petitioner was not unloading the truck, but exiting the trailer after the work was completed. Thus, even presuming his inexperience with “unloading," the petitioner was not handling or removing the metal sheets when the fall occurred.

Additionally, the petitioner was trained to avoid falls, albeit not specifically to avoid falls from flat-rack trailers. Without evidence that VDM was aware of a known or heightened danger, any lack of training, even considered together with VDM’s failure to use a RollaStep, did not demonstrate that the defendant was substantially certain that harm would arise from its actions. Additionally, there was no evidence that the defendant deliberately and deceptively removed the safety device from the location.

Even if VDM knew that the failure to use the RollaStep created some degree of danger, mere knowledge by an employer that a workplace is dangerous does not equate to an “intentional wrong."  The court noted that it had rejected the idea that a longstanding negligent or reckless practice should be deemed an intentional wrong under the Act simply because the risk posed by an ongoing wrongful practice will eventually occur.

While this case does not necessarily add anything new to the “intentional injury” test, it is a great reminder as to the court’s analysis of such claims. Again, a petitioner has a very high burden of proving both the “conduct” and “context” prongs under Supreme Court’s Laidlow decision.

The purpose of the exclusive remedy doctrine is to keep work claims in the workers’ compensation forum, while only the most egregious cases dealing with poor employer conduct can pierce the bar. Regardless of this decision, employers and carriers should always take great strides in insuring workplace safety. If you have any questions about your workplace safety program and procedures, please reach out to your TPA carrier and counsel for advice before the next potential work injury. 

Robert Fitzgerald works in our Mount Laurel, NJ office. He can be reached at (856) 414-6009 or RJFitzgerald@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

First DCA Reverses Excessive Jury Award Unsupported by the Evidence

In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a claim with Universal for damages caused by a water and sewage back up through the plumbing system and existing through multiple fixtures including the washing machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub and toilet. Universal investigated the claim, issued payment for resulting water damage totaling $7,000.00 in actual cash value ($12,000.00 in replacement cost value). The plaintiffs sought additional benefits for work needed to access the below-slab cast iron plumbing system due to the failure of the system from rust, deterioration, corrosion and breaks in the line. Universal denied any additional benefits for access. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed suit. During litigation, Universal sent a plumber to inspect the home and the plumber concluded the pipes were clogged but could be cleaned. The plaintiffs’ plumber testified that the plumbing system needed to be replaced due to holes and openings in the pipes. The plaintiffs introduced two estimates prepared by Triad Restoration services totaling $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value and an executed contract with another company for repairs with the amounts of repair redacted. Since the insurance policy did not provide coverage for repair or replacement of the plumbing system, the jury only had to decide whether the plumbing system needed to be replaced, and if it did, Universal would owe for the access costs; the jury verdict form required the jury to determine both the replacement cost value and actual cash value amounts. The jury asked if it had to rely on the Triad estimates for their amounts. The trial court advised the amount awarded had to be based on the evidence presented at trial and the law given by the trial court. The jury awarded $335,000.00 in replacement cost value or $305,000.00 in actual cash value. Universal motioned for a new trial arguing the amount awarded was unsupported by the evidence and then moved for remittitur. The trial court denied both motions and this appeal followed. The court found that while a jury’s verdict should only be disturbed with caution and discretion, the trial court must give the properly challenged award close scrutiny and determine whether it bears a reasonable relation to the damaged provided, is supported by the evidence, and could have been reached in a logical manner by reasonable means §768.74(3), (5)(d)-(e), Fla. Stat. The court found the trial court did consider the statutory requirements at the hearing on Universal’s remittitur motion and was concerned about a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and injury suffered and whether the award was supported by the evidence, but ultimately denied the motion, reasoning that the jury had been properly instructed to fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs. The court noted the only evidence providing the basis for the jury verdict was Triad’s estimates and those valued the plaintiffs' claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value; no valuation evidence reasonably supported the jury verdict. The plaintiffs argued that the jury was entitled to consider more than the estimates, but the court conveyed the evidence provided did not give the jury a way to reach the amounts they awarded. The court was also not swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument regarding inflation and later price increases, but the court noted that no evidence via the contract, nor testimony regarding increase in labor, material, fuel or construction costs were entered into the record.  The court concluded the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but it may not supply a damages number by speculation. The court did not find any of the plaintiffs’ remaining argument persuasive either. The court reversed the denial of Universal’s remittitur motion and motion for new trial as to damaged and remanded the case. The court ended its opinion with advising the trial court must determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the property measure of damages under the policy and order remittitur in an amount consistent with that determination and the evidence.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Thought Leadership

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees Due to Lack of Evidence to Support Fee Awarded

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding appellate fees to People’s Trust Insurance Company based upon a lack of evidence to support the attorney’s fee award in RM & Assocs. Consulting, Inc. v. People's Trust Ins. Co., 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 4654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). People’s Trust was the insurer of a residential property that had sustained water damage. RM & Associates Consulting was hired by the homeowner to perform mitigation services at the property. The homeowner assigned post-loss benefits to RM and RM subsequently filed suit against People’s Trust alleging that it had not been paid the money it was owed for the mitigation services. People’s Trust defended the lawsuit on the ground that the policy required the insured to notify the insurer before authorizing repairs so People's Trust could elect to use its preferred contractor. Because the owner did not comply with that provision, People's Trust asserted its liability was limited to the amount that its preferred contractor would have charged for the work, which People's Trust contended was $2,000. People's Trust paid that amount to RM before RM filed suit. People’s Trust filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. RM appealed the summary judgment ruling and the ruling was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate court also granted People’s Trust’s entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, subject to the trial court’s determination of the amount of fees, based upon an offer of judgment made by People's Trust. On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees People’s Trust was entitled to. At the hearing, People’s Trust presented testimony from it’s fee expert, supervising trial counsel and appellate counsel. People’s Trust sought recovery of $24,866.17 for work performed by appellate counsel. The request primarily consisted of work performed in preparation of the answer brief. The fee expert testified that more than ninety hours spent preparing the answer brief was reasonable given the complexity and significance of the underlying issue. The appellate court found that the fee expert’s testimony fell short of meeting the necessary standard of demonstrating that the hours expended were necessary. The appellate court found that the billing records did not serve to cure the deficient testimony, as the billing records did not contain adequate details regarding the specific tasks performed. Rather the records contained entries such as “answer brief” which the appellate court found to be insufficient. The appellate court noted that neither the fee expert or counsel addressed how the prior research and briefing in the parallel litigation informed the work in the instant matter. The appellate court noted this was significant in that a court's attorney's fees award must exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, citing Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based upon the record failing to support the finding of the trial court, the 4th DCA remanded the case to the trial court for a reconsideration and redetermination of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees supported by competent substantial evidence. The 4th DCA reiterated that the fee expert’s focus on the quality of the work and the importance of the work to People’s Trust did not make up for the perceived deficiencies in the position that spending over ninety hours on a single answer brief was reasonable. Whether moving for attorney’s fees or challenging the amount of fees being sought by an opposing party, practitioners should be mindful of the evidence being used to support the claims being made. Parties should pay close attention to whether the hours being sought may be impacted by prior litigation either party may have engaged in. A party must be prepared to address how prior litigation efforts did or did not impact the amount of hours being claimed in current litigation. Lastly, billing records must be sufficiently detailed so as to support any potential future fee claim.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida finds Evidence of Replacement Cost Value is Admissible and Recoverable Even When Repairs Have Not Been Made

The plaintiff filed a claim for damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. It claimed damages were over $24 million, but the carrier accepted partial coverage and paid $8,307.49 for secondary components. The carrier found hurricane damage to the building, but it was below the insurance policy’s $3.6 million deductible. The plaintiff sued for breach of the insurance policy. The carrier argued in a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff could not recover replacement cost value (RCV) because the property repairs had not been effectuated. The policy provided for RCV, but only after the repairs were completed. The carrier argued that because the repairs were not completed, the plaintiff was not entitled to RCV damages. The plaintiff argued the carrier could not withhold the actual cost value (ACV) due, which was the main allegation of the lawsuit, then fault it for not making the repairs to unlock the RCV. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected the carrier’s argument, finding that when an insurer allegedly breached the policy by withholding coverage, it could not hide behind a repair-contingent provision to block the insured from RCV damages at trial. The court found the issue to be whether the contractual language designed to preclude certain coverage until after repairs are completed barred an insured from seeking those damages at trial when repairs were not complete. The court noted the Eleventh Circuit had not resolved this issue and neither side pointed to a definitive answer from the Florida Supreme Court. The court reasoned that it must look to the Sixth District Court of Appeal (6th DCA), which is the court which would have heard this case if it was in state court. The court noted the 6th DCA recently addressed this issue in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 427 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026). The Rodriguez Court found that a breach of contract action is designed to adjudicate not only whether the contract was breached, but also evaluate the damages incurred had the breach not occurred, which the Rodriguez court found to be recovery of the RCV. This court also noted basic Florida contract principles compelled the same result, as a material breach frees the nonbreaching party to suspend its own performance and can demand the full benefit of its bargain, including RCV damages. Finally, the court found the distinction between a full denial and partial denial did not compel a different result. It found the policy required the carrier to acknowledge coverage and pay ACV for all covered damages, and the failure to do that is a material breach, entitling the insured to all of the damages available under the contract, which included the RCV.

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law.