The New Jersey Appellate Division delivered a favorable decision for Bressler, Amery and Ross attorneys Loren L. Pierce and Taylor L. Oxley in their representation of Kreilkamp Trucking, Inc., vacating orders that enforced a disputed settlement agreement and remanding for a plenary hearing on whether Kreilkamp’s former counsel had actual or apparent authority to settle. The unpublished decision was issued on September 29, 2026, in consolidated appeals from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County.
The underlying action arose from a May 2020 trip-and-fall in a commercial parking lot. The property-owner Defendants filed a third-party complaint against Kreilkamp, the Plaintiff’s employer and alleged tenant responsible for parking-lot maintenance. Kreilkamp was insured by Arch, which appointed defense counsel through a third-party claims administrator.
In February 2025, counsel for all parties placed a $600,000 global settlement on the record. The stated terms required Kreilkamp to contribute $300,000 and stipulate that it was at least one percent liable, which implicated its insurer, Arch, in a pending Federal Declaratory Judgment action. Kreilkamp’s prior counsel orally assented and signed consent dismissal orders.
After learning of the unauthorized settlement, Arch hired Bressler, Amery and Ross to represent Kreilkamp and dispute the unauthorized settlement. Over multiple motions, Kreilkamp and its claims administrator submitted unrefuted certifications stating that they had not known of the negotiations and had not authorized the settlement. The trial court nevertheless enforced the agreement and declined to conduct a plenary hearing.
Kreilkamp appealed the lower court’s decision, arguing that Kreilkamp’s prior attorney did not have actual or apparent authority to enter into the settlement agreement, and that the trial court erred when it relied only on the actions of the prior attorney, failed to properly consider the unrefuted certifications, and failed to hold a plenary hearing.
The Appellate Division ruled in favor of Kreilkamp and held that an evidentiary hearing was required. Although an attorney’s actions may be presumed authorized, apparent authority must rest at least in part on manifestations by the client - not solely on the attorney’s conduct. The Court found no identified client statements or acts supporting apparent authority beyond the initial retention of the law firm and Kreilkamp’s participation in a deposition. It also emphasized the unrefuted certifications denying authorization, an unexplained post-settlement email wherein prior counsel reported the case settled with zero contribution from Kreilkamp, and Kreilkamp’s prior trial counsel’s abrupt departure from his firm.
The Court vacated the May 27 and July 11, 2025 enforcement orders as they concerned Kreilkamp and remanded for a plenary hearing on the existence of actual and apparent authority and ordered additional limited discovery as to prior trial counsel’s authorization to enter into the settlement.