News & Insights

Recent Posts

WSHB's Constance Endelicato To Speak at ASHRM 2019 Annual Conference

Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Website Accessibility

Strategies for Defending Legionella and Mold Claims

Residential Revolution

Time Limit Demand Issues Arrive in North Carolina

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Julie A. Weerth to the Firm's New York Office

Temp Agency Absolved of Liability in Hotly Contested Action

Alternative Fee Agreements and Construction Issues: Oil and Water or Perfect Pairing!?

WSHB's Graham Miller Helps Demystify Construction Claims in the Pacific Northwest

WSHB Partner Janice Michaels Named to The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 List

One Bad Apple: Navigating through Sexual Battery and other Intentional Torts

Leading Construction Litigator Cynthia Tari Joins WSHB's Dallas Office

WSHB’s Philadelphia Partner Secures Summary Judgment in Catastrophic Premises Liability Matter

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Andrew Kessler

New Bill In New York Proposed for Signature by Governor Andrew Cuomo is Set To Make Employers "SWEAT"

Renowned Litigator Jason Williams Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Litigator Richard Young Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Published Appellate Opinion Upholding Summary Judgment in Favor of Commercial Tenant Against $3.5M Subrogation Suit

17 WSHB Lawyers Honored as 2019's Rising Stars

Arizona Supreme Court Allows Court of Appeals Decision Expanding Defendants' Ability to Enforce Settlements to Stand

WSHB’s Jason Klein Breaks Down the Good, the Sad and the Funny Sides of Claims

Litigating Sexual Battery and Other Intentional Torts: Navigating the One Bad Apple in Medical Negligence

WSHB Partner Michelle Arbitrio to Moderate Panel on Insurance and Risk Management in the Age of Mass Shootings

Girl on Fire: The Price of Pursuing the Truth in the #MeToo World

Pragmatic Issues on Settlement Versus Trial for Legal Malpractice Cases

WSHB Partner Jade Tran Named to Lawyers of Color's "Nation's Best" List

A Withering Assault

The Natural Progression of Natural Disasters

Nevada’s Governor Signs Chapter 40 Reform Bill

WA Condo Law Changes Hope to Curtail Frivolous Defect Lawsuits and Stimulate Production

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning Steps Into the Spotlight at this Year's West Coast Casualty Seminar

Professional Liability Expert Weighs In On Protecting Your Practice From Opioid Doc Arrest Fallout

Penalties, Punitives, and Granny Cams: The Escalating Lure of Elder Abuse Litigation

Are Structured Settlements Still Relevant

Game Changing Trends Affecting Construction

He's Not My Guy: The Joint-Employer Doctrine

WSHB Case Update: DOL Proposes Increase to Minimum Salary Threshold

WSHB and DWF Announce Exclusive Association

WSHB Client Alert: Meser v. Bound Brook Board of Education

WSHB Partner Nancy Quinn Koba Elected Supreme Court Justice for the Ninth District

WSHB Case Update: New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that the Worker’s Compensation Act Prohibits Waivers of an Employee’s Claims Against Third-Party Tortfeasors

February 2, 2018

Why this Case is Important

In Vitale v. Schering-Plough Corporation, 231 N.J. 234 (2017), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that section 39 of the New Jersey Worker’s Compensation Act prohibits a waiver of an employee’s claims against third-party tortfeasors. Courts have traditionally applied this statute to prohibit waivers of an employee’s right to worker’s compensation benefits. The Vitale decision expands the scope of the prohibition to include waivers of an employee’s claims against third-parties. Therefore, employees cannot be required to waive future tort claims against third-parties as a condition of employment.

Facts of Case

The plaintiff in Vitale was a security guard employed by a security services contractor and assigned to the defendant’s facility. As a condition of employment, the plaintiff executed a liability waiver with his employer purporting to release claims against his employer’s clients, including the defendant. After the plaintiff was injured at the defendant’s facility, the defendant sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims based on the waiver.

The Ruling

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled against the defendant, finding that the waiver signed by plaintiff was unenforceable as against public policy. In declining to enforce the waiver, the New Jersey Supreme Court centered its analysis on section 39 of New Jersey’s Worker’s Compensation Act, which provides as follows:

No agreement, composition, or release of damages made before the happening of any accident, except the agreement defined in section 34:15–7 of this title shall be valid or shall bar a claim for damages for the injury resulting therefrom, and any such agreement is declared to be against public policy.

N.J.S.A. 34:15-39. The Court noted that New Jersey courts have traditionally applied this statute to void pre-accident waivers of the right to worker’s compensation benefits. In deciding whether the prohibition on pre-injury waivers also applied to employee claims against third-party tortfeasors as in the case before it, the Court focused on the statutory language, which it described as “expansive.” Given the broad language, the Court interpreted the statute to bar “not only pre-accident agreements waiving the employee’s right to assert the statutory claim for worker’s compensation benefits, but agreements waiving the employee’s right to assert a common-law action for damages against a third-party based on a workplace accident, that is addressed in section 40.” The Court found support for this interpretation in Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. v. Smyth, 93 N.J. Eq. 80, 82-83 (Ch. 1921), a Chancery Division case from 1921 which applied section 39’s predecessor statute to reach a similar conclusion. The Vitale Court reasoned that depriving the plaintiff of the opportunity to pursue a third-party claim would effectively eliminate the employer’s worker’s compensation lien on third party recoveries, disrupting the legislature’s balancing of interests embodied in the Worker’s Compensation Act.


The Vitale decision prohibits an employee from waiving future tort claims against as a condition of employment, but the case leaves several questions unanswered. For example, if an employee signs a liability waiver as part of a one-time participation in recreational physical activity, is the waiver enforceable? Although courts routinely enforce liability waivers context where risk of injury is an inherent part of the activity, e.g., Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, LLC, 203 N.J. 286, 313 (2010), an expansive interpretation of the Vitale may result in the invalidity of such waivers if the person engaging in recreational physical activity is doing so in the scope of their employment.


Privacy Policy      |      Site Map

© 2019 Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required