Violation of New Jersey’s Underground Facility Protection Act Not Necessarily Proximate Cause of Damage to Underground Plant
A New Jersey appellate court has determined that a violation of the One-Call markout requirements imposed by the Underground Facility Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 48:2-73 to -91 (“UFPA”), as well as the implementing regulations of the Board of Public Utilities, N.J.A.C. 14:2-1.1 to -6.10, does not automatically subject the violator to liability for damage to underground plant.
The UFPA imposes various requirements upon persons seeking to excavate in New Jersey, including at the outset an obligation to notify the One-Call system of an intent to excavate. On receipt of such a notice, the One-Call system notifies the owners of underground utility plant in the area of the proposed excavation, requiring such owners to “mark out” their plant, thus enabling the excavator to avoid such plant when performing work. Under the One-Call program, the excavator is provided with a window within which work must begin; it may not start earlier than the start date and must begin no later than a subsequent “Start-By” date.
In the instant matter, having been notified of proposed excavation by the defendant, J.F. Kiely Construction Co. (“Kiely”), Verizon New Jersey, Inc. (“Verizon”) marked out its plant in Egg Harbor Township, where the construction was occurring. The One-Call center advised Kiely that construction must begin no later than August 31, 2011. Kiely began construction, but not until September 7, 2011, one week past the deadline. In the course of excavation, Kiely damaged Verizon’s plant.
Verizon moved for summary judgment on the grounds that there was no genuine dispute as to material facts and that Kiely’s failure to abide by the Start-By date constituted negligence, resulting in liability to Verizon for damages. The trial court agreed and entered judgment for Verizon.
On appeal, the court held that Kiely’s failure to adhere to the markout requirements in terms of commencing construction by the Start-By date constituted evidence of negligence but that it did not conclusively establish negligence, nor that Kiely’s actions were the proximate cause of Verizon’s damage. Rather, the Appellate Court noted a factual dispute as to whether Verizon’s plant had been properly marked out; the court reasoned that if it had not been properly marked out, Verizon’s plant might have been damaged by Kiely even if Kiely had begun excavation within the designated window. In other words, the court held, Kiely’s actions may have constituted a technical violation of the UFPA, constituting prima facie evidence of negligence, but whether Kiely’s actions were the proximate cause of Verizon’s harm was a question for trial.
The appellate court also determined that there had been no evidence at the trial of the amount of damage sustained by Verizon and that both questions, i.e., whether Kiely’s actions proximately caused Verizon’s damage and, if so, to what extent, should be addressed on remand of the matter to the trial court.
View a PDF of the full Opinion here.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Dennis Linken, at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
NJ Appellate Court Considers Violation of Underground Facility Protection Act
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Violation of New Jersey’s Underground Facility Protection Act Not Necessarily Proximate Cause of Damage to Underground Plant
A New Jersey appellate court has determined that a violation of the One-Call markout requirements imposed by the Underground Facility Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 48:2-73 to -91 (“UFPA”), as well as the implementing regulations of the Board of Public Utilities, N.J.A.C. 14:2-1.1 to -6.10, does not automatically subject the violator to liability for damage to underground plant.
The UFPA imposes various requirements upon persons seeking to excavate in New Jersey, including at the outset an obligation to notify the One-Call system of an intent to excavate. On receipt of such a notice, the One-Call system notifies the owners of underground utility plant in the area of the proposed excavation, requiring such owners to “mark out” their plant, thus enabling the excavator to avoid such plant when performing work. Under the One-Call program, the excavator is provided with a window within which work must begin; it may not start earlier than the start date and must begin no later than a subsequent “Start-By” date.
In the instant matter, having been notified of proposed excavation by the defendant, J.F. Kiely Construction Co. (“Kiely”), Verizon New Jersey, Inc. (“Verizon”) marked out its plant in Egg Harbor Township, where the construction was occurring. The One-Call center advised Kiely that construction must begin no later than August 31, 2011. Kiely began construction, but not until September 7, 2011, one week past the deadline. In the course of excavation, Kiely damaged Verizon’s plant.
Verizon moved for summary judgment on the grounds that there was no genuine dispute as to material facts and that Kiely’s failure to abide by the Start-By date constituted negligence, resulting in liability to Verizon for damages. The trial court agreed and entered judgment for Verizon.
On appeal, the court held that Kiely’s failure to adhere to the markout requirements in terms of commencing construction by the Start-By date constituted evidence of negligence but that it did not conclusively establish negligence, nor that Kiely’s actions were the proximate cause of Verizon’s damage. Rather, the Appellate Court noted a factual dispute as to whether Verizon’s plant had been properly marked out; the court reasoned that if it had not been properly marked out, Verizon’s plant might have been damaged by Kiely even if Kiely had begun excavation within the designated window. In other words, the court held, Kiely’s actions may have constituted a technical violation of the UFPA, constituting prima facie evidence of negligence, but whether Kiely’s actions were the proximate cause of Verizon’s harm was a question for trial.
The appellate court also determined that there had been no evidence at the trial of the amount of damage sustained by Verizon and that both questions, i.e., whether Kiely’s actions proximately caused Verizon’s damage and, if so, to what extent, should be addressed on remand of the matter to the trial court.
View a PDF of the full Opinion here.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Dennis Linken, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
