In a matter of first impression, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, held that the Wrongful Death Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:31-1 to -6 was broad enough to include as damages the amount of an heir’s loss of a prospective inheritance resulting from the imposition of increased estate taxes. See Beim v. Hulfish. In Beim, the 97-year-old decedent died as a result of injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

As a result of the decedent’s passing in 2008, his heirs claimed that they were forced to incur estate taxes in the amount of $1,196,083.57. The heirs noted that if the decedent died in 2009 the tax obligation would have been reduced by $626,083 and by 2010 the tax obligation would have been reduced in total. Thus, the heirs contended that his untimely death as a result of the car accident in 2008 caused them to incur pecuniary harm occasioned by the death of the decedent. The trial court held that the claims of the heirs were too speculative. Interestingly, the trial court noted that the 2011 tax rates were set to revert to the 2008 levels and that if the decedent died in 2011, which was possible according to mortality tables, the estate would have had to pay the entire tax obligation.

In overruling the trial court and remanding for further proceedings, the Appellate Division stated:

Without impinging upon the creativity and imagination of counsel, we could expect the parties to offer expert opinion in the fields of medicine and economics to illuminate life expectancy and mortality issues…. Additionally, accounting-related opinions could be mustered to explain taxation issues. This catalog of disciplines is for illustrative purposes only and is not intended to represent a minimum threshold or a maximum limit upon what could be made available to assist the jury in determining “such damages as they shall deem fair and just with reference to the pecuniary injuries resulting from such death.”

N.J.S.A. 2A:31-5.

There is nothing in this case that engenders unacceptable conjecture or speculation about the estate tax structure. In wrongful death cases, we tolerate relaxed evidentiary standards with respect to proof of damages. See Lesniak v. Cnty. of Bergen, 117 N.J. 12, 27 (1989)…. We harbor no fears that a properly instructed jury will produce a verdict that is based upon mere speculation.

Thus, the court concluded that the jury should be permitted, with the aid of competent expert opinions, to render a verdict with respect to whether it was likely that the heirs would have sustained pecuniary loss. 

What It Means to You

As a result of this decision, the plaintiff bar will likely start having their economists factor in this element of damages and the defense will need to respond in kind, with the understanding that under New Jersey’s Wrongful Death Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:31-1 to -6, pecuniary injuries may include a diminishment in a prospective inheritance caused by increased estate taxes incurred due to the premature death of a decedent.