## Facts

- Alfred Pine was born in 1953 to a New York resident mother who was prescribed and ingested diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy in New York.
- Pine lived in New York through college, attended law school in Massachusetts, and then returned to live and practice law in New York.
- In August 1979, Pine was diagnosed with testicular cancer and underwent surgery in New York; he alleged physicians then informed him the cancer was linked to in utero DES exposure.
- Pine consulted a New York attorney about potential litigation in March 1980 and later consulted a New Jersey attorney in fall 1980.
- Pine moved to New Jersey in December 1980 on a month-to-month rental basis.
- In July 1981, Pine sued eight pharmaceutical manufacturers (including Eli Lilly) in New Jersey, alleging prenatal DES exposure caused his cancer.
- Pine conceded the claim was untimely under New York’s statute of limitations but argued New Jersey’s discovery-rule approach would make the suit timely.

## Issues

1. Whether New Jersey should apply its own statute of limitations (including the discovery rule) or borrow New York’s limitations period for a DES-related products-liability claim centered in New York but filed in New Jersey after the plaintiff’s recent relocation.
2. Whether, under New Jersey’s choice-of-law approach to limitations periods, New York had the dominant interest such that New York’s time bar should control.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment.
- The court held New York’s statute of limitations applied under New Jersey’s borrowing analysis.
- Because New York’s limitations period barred the claim, summary judgment was directed for defendants.

## Legal Principles

- New Jersey may “borrow” another state’s statute of limitations when the cause of action arose elsewhere and that other state has the dominant governmental interest and the most significant contacts with the dispute.
- Statutes of limitation are not treated as purely procedural for conflicts purposes; they may be applied functionally as part of the overall choice-of-law analysis.
- A plaintiff’s domicile at the time of filing, standing alone, does not control the limitations choice-of-law determination where the operative events and injury are centered in another state.
- Where the relevant conduct, injury, and plaintiff’s long-term residence are concentrated in a foreign state, applying New Jersey’s more generous limitations rules may be rejected to prevent forum shopping and to respect the foreign state’s policy of repose (including the absence of a discovery rule).

## Conclusion

The court required application of New York’s limitations law because New York was the primary jurisdiction connected to the prescription and ingestion of DES, the plaintiff’s birth and residence, and the diagnosis and treatment of the injury; New Jersey would not extend its discovery-rule limitations regime based on a plaintiff’s recent move made shortly before suit.


Pine v. Eli Lilly & Co., 201 N.J. Super. 186, 492 A.2d 1079 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985)