ROBERTET FLAVORS, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TRI-FORM CONSTRUCTION, INC., ROBERT KARABINCHAK, AND ACADEMY GLASS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND TAMIGITHENS, INC., A-TECH CONCRETE COMPANY, INC., AND FISHER CONTRACTING, INC., DEFENDANTS. AND TRI-FORM CONSTRUCTION, INC., AND ROBERT KARABINCHAK, THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS, v. A-TECH CONCRETE COMPANY, INC., FISHER CONTRACTING, INC., NEWARK ELECTRIC, INC., ADVANCE INTERIORS, INC., ACADEMY GLASS, INC., STUCCO SYSTEMS, INC., U.S. ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, INC., AUTOMATION CONCEPTS, INC., AND FLAVIO TAMBURRI, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS., 203 N.J. 252

Summary

Plaintiff alleged that his commercial building was constructed with an alleged, but remediated, defective window system. The trial court concluded that plaintiff's remediation of the problems resulted in prejudice to defendants, whose experts had no opportunity to fully investigate the cause of the leaks. As such, the trial court found that the appropriate remedy was to preclude plaintiff's expert from giving opinion testimony. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded, finding that the installer had many opportunities to inspect the windows during the two years that plaintiff had complained as well as had superior knowledge about the installation. The Appellate Division found that the proper remedy was to limit plaintiff's expert proofs to those based only on evidence obtained prior to removal of the windows. The court affirmed, in part, finding that as to the installer, there was a sufficient basis on which to permit plaintiff to proceed. However, as to the construction company ...