Plaintiff Linda Brehme appealed a trial court in limine ruling barring her claim for future medical expenses. She had sued defendants Thomas Irwin and New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident. The issue in Brehme v. Irwin, 2023 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2401 (App. Div. Dec. 27, 2023) was whether the signed warrant to satisfy judgment barred her ability to appeal the trial court judge’s in limine ruling denying her claim for future medical expenses.
After discovery was completed in this matter, the case proceeded to trial. On the first day of trial, the judge heard an in limine motion by defendant to bar plaintiff’s claim for future medical expenses. The judge determined that plaintiff’s personal injury protection coverage under her automobile insurance policy was not exhausted and, hence, barred as speculative any claim by plaintiff for future medical expenses.
The case was tried before a jury, which awarded plaintiff the sum of $225,000 for pain and suffering and $50,000 for lost wages. After adding interest and costs, the judge entered a judgment. Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel signed a warrant to satisfy judgment. There was nothing in the warrant that indicated plaintiff’s intent to appeal the judge’s in limine ruling denying her claim for future medical expenses. The judgment was paid and the signed warrant to satisfy judgment was entered on the court’s docket. Thereafter, plaintiff filed this notice of appeal.
The plaintiff argued that the judge made a mistake in denying her claim for future medical expenses. In her appeal, she sought a new trial limited to this issue. She further argued that she was not precluded from proceeding with her appeal, notwithstanding the warrant to satisfy judgment.
The Appellate Division rejected that argument. It noted the well settled law that “a litigant who voluntarily accepts the benefits of a judgment is estopped from attacking it on appeal.” Here, the defendant elected not to appeal the judgment and agreed to pay the full amount to plaintiff in return for a warrant of satisfaction. The Court noted the case law that “where a party receives and accepts the judgment amount and the adverse party then files a warrant for satisfaction, such conduct expressly acknowledges the validity of the judgment and operates as a waiver of the right to appeal therefrom.”
The plaintiff never advanced, either on the record or in writing, that she intended to continue to pursue her claim for future medical expenses. She accepted and received the full judgment amount from the defendant New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company and a warrant to satisfy judgment. The Appellate Division held that the plaintiff’s receipt and acceptance of the full amount of the judgment precluded her appeal challenging the trial judge’s denial of future medical expenses. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal as moot.
