Summary
indicating that whether employees' actions were in the scope of employment and motivated to serve employer was a question of fact for the jury
Summary of this case from Galicki v. New JerseyOpinion
A-21 September Term 2001
Argued February 13, 2002
Decided May 21, 2002
On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division.
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, and ZAZZALI join in this opinion. JUSTICE STEIN did not participate.
Joel H. Sterns argued the cause for appellants (Sterns Weinroth, attorneys; Mark D. Schorr and Mitchell A. Livingston, on the briefs).
Ellis I. Medoway argued the cause for respondent (Archer Greiner, attorneys; Mr. Medoway and Arthur H. Jones, Jr., on the brief).
This case arises out of a construction contract between Commerce Bank, N.A. (Commerce) and Di Maria Construction, Inc. (Di Maria). Di Maria claimed that Commerce had breached the contract. A panel of arbitrators from the American Arbitration Association (AAA) found in Di Maria's favor. Accordingly, the arbitrators ordered Commerce to pay Di Maria an amount relating to specified phases of the construction project, and to pay a separate amount more generally reflecting "damages suffered by [Di Maria] related to all other contractual topics." That award was confirmed in the Law Division and affirmed on appeal.
Commerce Bank v. Di Maria Constr., Inc., 300 N.J. Super. 9, 13, 21 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 73 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1116, 118 S.Ct. 1053, 140 L.Ed.2d 116 (1998).
Following the arbitrators' award, Di Maria filed this action against Interarch, Shirley Hill, and Raymond A. Klumb (defendants) in the Law Division, alleging tortious interference with the prior construction contract and interference with its prospective economic advantage. At the time of the contract, defendants acted as agents of Commerce. The jury found in Di Maria's favor, awarding both compensatory and punitive damages.
We granted defendants' petition for certification, 170 N.J. 86 (2001), to review, among other things, their contention that Di Maria was barred from recovering lost profits in its Law Division action because the arbitrators had included such relief in their prior award. The Appellate Division rejected that contention, concluding that "there was no overlap between the arbitration award and the judgment, and Di Maria is entitled to both." Di Maria Constr., Inc. v. Interarch, 351 N.J. Super. 558, 575, 799 A.2d 555, 565 (2001). The panel resolved all other issues raised by defendants.
We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in that court's thorough and persuasive opinion. We add only the following.
If Di Maria's prior arbitration award had described more fully the "other contractual topics" on which it founded relief, the present dispute might have been avoided. We thus urge arbitrators to describe with greater specificity the claims that they intend to cover or include in their awards. Such specificity would reduce the likelihood of unnecessary litigation and, in our view, would not trespass on the internal rules of the AAA. See, e.g., American Arbitration Association, Construction Industry Dispute Resolution Procedures, R-45 (revised and in effect on July 1, 2001), available at http://www.adr.org/ (last visited Apr. 10, 2002) ("The arbitrator shall provide a concise, written breakdown of the award.")
The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.