The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a provision cited in a retirement home refund policy class action does not allow plaintiffs to recover damages due to the fact that it only pertains to food-related fraud. The provision at issue, enacted decades ago to supplement the state’s Consumer Fraud Act, includes language that limits the kinds of claims it applies to. The court’s unanimous opinion, written by Justice Douglas M. Fasciale, explains that the provision does not apply to the entire act, and serves to limit the need for multiple refund provisions.
This ruling is a setback for plaintiff William DeSimone, who sued senior care nonprofit Springpoint Senior Living Inc. in 2013. DeSimone, as the executor of his mother’s estate and class representative, sought a refund for his family and others from Springpoint. However, the Supreme Court determined that the class is not entitled to a refund under the provision it cited.
DeSimone’s lawyer, Eric S. Pasternack of Cohen Placitella & Roth PC, stated that they still plan to seek refunds under another statute and look forward to presenting the case to a jury.
The dispute arises from the case of DeSimone and his siblings moving their mother Evelyn into a Middlesex County retirement home owned by Springpoint. The entrance fee was $159,000, and Evelyn died in 2010. Springpoint sent DeSimone a check for $80,136, which was calculated based on the entrance fee paid by the subsequent resident who moved into the same unit as Evelyn. The estate argued that they were unaware of this information and that Springpoint did not disclose entrance fee discounts that could affect a prior resident’s refund.
A trial judge had previously certified the class and denied a request by Springpoint to dismiss claims for a full refund. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling upheld the company’s stance, noting that the refund provision does not apply to this situation.
The case is DeSimone v. Springpoint Senior Living Inc., N.J., No. A-37-22, 1/10/24.