The New Jersey Appellate Division issued a decision reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the Firm’s client’s insurance subrogation claim - a ruling that reinforces the evidentiary value of modern technology and recognizes the real-world challenges of proving damages in commercial vehicle cases.
In this subrogation action, plaintiff, the Firm’s client, sought to recover amounts paid to repair its insured’s tractor-trailer after a collision with the defendant’s vehicle. At the bench trial, the insured’s driver, whom the trucking company no longer employed, was unavailable to testify. To establish liability, plaintiff presented clear surveillance video documenting the moment of impact. To prove damages, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from its subrogation manager, who oversees property damage evaluations, reviews repair estimates and photographs, and identifies third-party recovery opportunities. He attested that, based on his review of the documented damage, the repair estimate was reasonable and consistent with the severity of the collision. At the close of plaintiff’s case, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, ruling that the video could not establish liability without driver testimony and that the damages affidavit was insufficient without a live witness from the repair facility. The court also declined plaintiff’s request to have the subrogation manager testify virtually. Plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed. It held that the directed verdict was “improvidently granted,” noting that the defendant never challenged the authenticity, validity, or relevance of the surveillance footage. As a result, the video was competent evidence capable of supporting a liability finding in a bench trial.
On damages, the Court agreed that the affidavit itself was hearsay but clarified that the subrogation manager could testify virtually, allowing for full cross-examination. Given his substantial experience with property damage assessments and subrogation claims, his testimony could support the reasonableness of the repair costs. The Court further held that the trial court should have evaluated whether the subrogation manager qualified as an expert under N.J.R.E. 702. If so, his testimony would be admissible, subject only to credibility and weight—matters properly left to the fact finder.
This appellate win underscores two critical points for practitioners:
- Credible video evidence can independently establish liability, even when live eyewitness testimony is unavailable.
- Expertise is not limited to traditional “experts.” A lay professional with significant practical experience may qualify as an expert under the rules of evidence, especially in specialized commercial fields.
The decision reaffirms that innovative evidentiary strategies—such as virtual testimony and reliance on photographic and video documentation—can provide effective, persuasive alternatives in complex cases. It is a reminder that thoughtful advocacy and modern tools can overcome challenges in proving both liability and damages.
About O’Toole Scrivo, LLC
We are a carefully crafted mid-sized law firm of recognized subject matter experts practicing primarily in New York and New Jersey. We combine large-firm expertise with small-firm attention to client needs, representing businesses, insurance companies, and government entities. We are committed to delivering creative and timely results for the most high-profile and complex matters.
