Plaintiff Lourdes Gonzalez had filed a lawsuit against her landlord, defendant 908-910 Washington Street, LLC, alleging various theories of liability, based upon the condition of her apartment. That lawsuit was settled on certain terms which included a general release of any and all claims against the landlord. The issue in Gonzalez v. 908-910 Washington Street, LLC, 2023 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1528 (App. Div. Sept. 13, 2023) was whether the plaintiff’s subsequent lawsuit for a personal injury based upon alleged lead poisoning in her apartment’s water supply was barred by the release she signed in the property dispute.
Plaintiff, along with two other tenants, had filed suit against the defendant landlord claiming that “ongoing course of discriminatory and unconscionable conduct for the purposes of evicting tenants are causing them to vacate the leased premises.” Plaintiff sued the landlord based upon various theories of liability and requested an order enjoining the defendant landlord from pursuing eviction and she also sought damages. Subsequently, that lawsuit was settled pursuant to a six-page settlement agreement which included a general release. These settlement terms included the execution of a two-year lease with the parties’ simultaneous execution of a consent judgment for possession at the end of the two-year period and the defendant landlord’s payment to the plaintiff of $55,000.
The settlement agreement included a general release which contained language releasing the landlord from any and all actions and causes of action, whether known or unknown, or whether asserted or which could have been asserted against the landlord.
Following the execution of the agreement, the plaintiff retained the services of a building inspector to document her apartment’s condition at the beginning of her new lease. The inspector tested her water. She learned from the inspector’s report that the lead level in her apartment’s hot water supply was 60 times greater than the level permitted under federal regulations. She had her blood levels tested and she learned that she had an elevated lead level.
Thereafter, plaintiff vacated the premises pursuant to the settlement agreement. Following her departure from the apartment, she sued the defendant landlord a second time, claiming that the landlord negligently installed plumbing in her apartment and sought damages for personal injury. She claimed that the hot water pipe to her apartment tested for lead and that the test results showed a lead level 60 times the permissible lead levels established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. She further claimed that she suffered chronic lead poisoning caused by the prolonged contact with the lead contaminated water supply in her apartment and that the lead poisoning resulted in a serious permanent bodily injury. She sued on various theories of liability which boiled down to the defendant landlord’s “alleged failure to maintain plaintiff’s apartment’s potable water supply in a safe condition, resulting in harm to her through lead contamination.”
The defendant landlord filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement and dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The trial court found that all parties had the capacity to understand and enter into this agreement and granted the motion as to defendant, finding that the agreement unambiguously and expressly provided that any and all claims arising out of or relating to the prior lawsuit were waived, which included claims and damages, known or unknown. The trial court relied upon prior case law for the proposition that a plaintiff who has signed a general release is barred from bringing a subsequent personal injury claim.
Plaintiff appealed that order, finding that the trial court failed to apply the Supreme Court’s holding in Bilotti v. Accurate Forming Corp. Pursuant to Bilotti, the Court held that the scope of a release must be determined by the intention of the parties “as expressed in the terms of the particular instrument, considered in the light of all the facts and circumstances.” A general release would ordinarily cover all claims and demands due at the time of its execution and within the contemplation of the parties. However, questions of such intent cannot ordinarily be “fairly disposed of on affidavits in a summary judgment application.”
In opposing the defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement, plaintiff submitted a certification that she did not intend to give up any future claims for personal injury damages due to lead poisoning. Her first complaint was a property-based relief as she sought to compel her landlord to make repairs to her apartment. Her claims at that time were that the building plumbing system did not supply adequate hot water to her apartment. It was only after she settled her first lawsuit that she learned that the hot water system was contaminated with lead at unsafe levels.
After considering all of the facts in this case, the Appellate Division did find that the Bilotti case applied and emphasized that a general release, while it would ordinarily cover all claims and demands at the time of its execution, it would only cover those claims within the contemplation of the parties. The Court found that the trial court made a mistake when it failed to find that there were genuine factual issues on the question of the party’s intent when they settled the first lawsuit. Hence, the court’s order of dismissal was vacated and the case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings.
