Eric Poe, Esq., CPA is a Princeton, New Jersey–based executive and attorney who leads CURE Auto Insurance, overseeing operations, underwriting, claims, litigation strategy, and enterprise growth. Recognized by NJBIZ (Leaders in Law; 40 Under 40) and the New Jersey Law Journal (Trailblazers), Eric Poe has also testified before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services and multiple state legislative committees on fair underwriting and consumer protections. An alumnus of the University of Colorado (accounting) and Seton Hall University School of Law, Eric Poe blends financial rigor with legal acumen in evaluating how procedural rules affect risk, cost, and negotiation dynamics. In this featured article, he spotlights New Jersey’s revised Offer of Judgment (OOJ) framework and why timing, reasonableness, and fee-shift exposure can change the settlement calculus for plaintiffs and defendants alike—often encouraging earlier, more realistic pathways to resolution.
New Offer of Judgment in New Jersey Levels Playing Field
In 2022, New Jersey revised its Offer of Judgment (OOJ) rule, allowing any party in a civil case to make a settlement offer to the opposing party to promote settlement and early resolution. Before this rule, a defendant made an offer to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff could accept or reject. Before the update, the OOJ primarily benefited plaintiffs in New Jersey civil courts; however, the new rule levels the playing field for defendants.
OOJ rules permit defendants to make an offer to the plaintiff to settle a case before it reaches judgment. The plaintiff has certain time periods to accept or decline the offer. Furthermore, if the plaintiff turns down the offer and the courts do not return a favorable verdict, they might be liable for attorney’s fees and other costs to the defendant. For this reason, plaintiffs have an incentive to consider the offer. Defendants gain the benefit of being able to limit liability and control litigation expenses.
If the offer is 80 percent or less of the judgment, the defendant can have the plaintiff pay attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. The plaintiff may also make an offer to the defendant and, if that offers is rejected, may be awarded attorney’s fees and costs. Suppose the plaintiff makes an offer and receives 120 percent or more of the award. In that case, the plaintiff can ask the defendant to pay for litigation expenses if the offer was not accepted, a reasonable amount in attorney’s fees after the non-acceptance, and 8 percent interest on the judgment from the offer date or discovery end date.
Additionally, New Jersey law imposes a time limit on accepting and rejecting the offer, as well as on when the rule is not applicable. It requires the offering party to serve their adversary within 20 days of the first day in court. If a party does not accept the offer within 10 days of the trial date or 90 days after service, the court considers the offer rejected. Finally, in terms of employment and civil rights cases, defendant employers cannot make plaintiffs pay attorney’s fees and court costs in cases involving the Conscientious Employee Act and the Law Against Discrimination because it would go against the public interest.
Specific guidelines apply in matrimonial, condemnation, tax, employment, and civil rights cases, as there are other considerations besides a monetary award. Parties cannot serve OOJs in tax and condemnation cases, with the latter referring to those involving the government taking property.
Plaintiffs historically were the only side to benefit from this rule, but now either party can use the OOJ process as a strategic negotiating tool. By realistically reassessing damages and carefully examining one’s claims, a reasonable and meaningful offer will have an increased chance of promoting resolution. This approach forces the other party to make a reasoned and thoughtful decision. If they reject the offer, they will face paying the other party’s fees, which will make them seriously consider any subsequent offer. Furthermore, either party could use this tool as leverage for both parties to come to a reasonable conclusion.
By forcing an unreasonable party to fully and fairly review and consider a settlement, all parties benefit by the reduced the amount of money spent on litigation. More than the fee-shifting, civil litigation cases can last years, with some parties spending exorbitant amounts on attorneys’ costs and fees.
About Eric Poe
An entrepreneur and attorney based in Princeton, New Jersey, Eric S. Poe, Esq., CPA leads CURE Auto Insurance, guiding underwriting, loss control, claims, litigation strategy, and growth. He has testified before Congress and state committees on fair pricing and underwriting and has been recognized by NJBIZ and the New Jersey Law Journal for leadership and advocacy.
Informational only; not legal advice.
