New Jersey Supreme Court Clarifies When Plaintiffs Can Appeal After Accepting a Final Judgment

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling in Brehme v. Irwin, 259 N.J. 505 (2025) clarifies when a plaintiff may appeal a judge’s ruling during trial after accepting a final judgment. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who accepts a final judgment may still appeal, but only if certain conditions are met.

The case arose from a 2016 automobile accident in which Thomas Irwin rear-ended Linda Brehme. At trial, Brehme sought to introduce evidence of projected future medical expenses, but the trial judge denied the motion. Since Brehme had not exhausted her PIP coverage, such evidence was inadmissible. The jury awarded Brehme an amount for pain and suffering, past lost wages, and pre- and post-judgment interest. After Irwin’s insurer paid the judgment and Brehme’s attorney signed a warrant to satisfy it, Brehme filed an appeal challenging the exclusion of future medical expenses.

In a 2025 unanimous decision written by Justice Douglas M. Fasciale, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing two key conditions a plaintiff must meet to preserve the right to appeal after accepting a final judgment. First, the plaintiff must have made their intent to appeal known before accepting payment and signing the warrant to satisfy the judgment. Second, the appellate issue must be separable from the final judgment, meaning that prevailing on appeal should not require vacating the original judgment. A successful appeal should only increase the award. Because Brehme failed to satisfy either condition, her appeal was deemed moot.

The Court cited Adolph Gottscho, Inc. v. American Marking Corp., 26 N.J. 229 (1958), which established that a litigant can appeal an issue post-judgment only if it is independent of the original award. The Court determined that Brehme’s claim did not meet this standard, as future medical expenses were intertwined with the jury’s pain and suffering assessment. The Court also rejected Brehme’s argument that filing her notice of appeal within the standard 45-day deadline preserved her right to challenge the ruling. Procedural compliance does not override substantive principles governing finality.

The court referred the matter to the Civil Practice Committee, acknowledging a need for clearer guidance on Rule 4:48-1, which governs the satisfaction of judgments. We look forward to the Civil Practice Committee’s further guidance in light of the Court’s ruling.

Need more insights on general and automobile liability law, have questions, or need legal assistance in this area? Contact William Watt at wwatt@hoaglandlongo.com or Joseph Leone at jleone@hoaglandlongo.com, or call us at 732-545-4717.