new jersey – Duane Morris Insurance Law

August 3, 2026August 3, 2026 by Duane Morris

NJ Supreme Court: Insurance Brokers, Producers, and Agents Not Exempt from Consumer Fraud Act, Casts Doubt on “Learned Professional” Exemption

By Brad D. Feldman, Gregory D. Herrold and James Hearon

In a unanimous opinion, Lowe v. Audet, __ N.J. ___ (2026) (slip op.), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that insurance brokers, producers, and agents are not exempt from the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, under the judicially created “learned professional” exemption, as semi-professionals or otherwise. The Court’s opinion will have an immediate impact on the insurance industry in New Jersey, subjecting insurance brokers, agents, and producers to potential liability under the CFA, one of the nation’s strongest consumer protection laws.

Lowe’s reach, however, is not limited to the insurance industry. The opinion portends potential significant exposure for a broad range of other industries currently reliant on the “learned professional” exemption, including the possibility of treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs available under the CFA. The Court invited the Legislature to clarify whether certain professionals are exempt from CFA liability and, if so, to identify those professionals with specificity. But the Court signaled that, absent legislative clarity, it will “await a case that presents a direct challenge” to the “learned professional” exemption. While declining to formally abolish the exemption, the Court expressed “serious doubts” about its textual and legislative foundations and left the exemption’s continued viability an open question under New Jersey law. The opinion serves as a stark warning to regulated professionals and businesses operating in New Jersey.

Read the full article published in The New Jersey Law Journal on the Duane Morris LLP website.

March 6, 2023 by Duane Morris

Coverage Denied in NJ Environmental Suit Based on Policy’s Pending Litigation Exclusion

By: Sheila Raftery Wiggins

The New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that an insurer is not obligated to indemnify an insured for natural resources damages that it may pay in the underlying lawsuit brought by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) because of the Policy’s Prior or Pending Litigation Exclusion. This exclusion applies because the NJDEP’s suit is based on the same environmental contamination alleged in a 1987 Administrative Consent Order between the NJDEP and the insured. Handy & Harman, et. al v. Beazley USA Services Inc. (Syndicates 623 and 2623 at Lloyd’s London), A-2068-20 (N.J. App. Div. March 2, 2023) (unpublished).

Lesson: An administrative consent order – required by an environmental statute in order for the property to be sold in the 1980’s – is sufficient to constitute a “claim,” as defined by the Policy’s Prior or Pending Litigation Exclusion.

Continue reading “Coverage Denied in NJ Environmental Suit Based on Policy’s Pending Litigation Exclusion”

February 26, 2016 by Duane Morris

No Prejudice in New Jersey Needed to Bar Coverage to Sophisticated Insured for Delay in Notice Under Claims-Made Policy

By Sheila Raftery Wiggins

The Supreme Court of New Jersey – the highest court in New Jersey – held that the failure to comply with the notice provisions of the claims-made policy constitutes a breach of the policy, permitting the insurer to decline coverage to a sophisticated insured without demonstrating prejudice to the insurer caused by the delay.

We previously reported on where the Appellate Division ruled, in Templo Fuente de Vida Corp. and Fuente Properties, Inc., that for a claims-made policy, the policy holder is to provide notice of a claim: (1) during the same policy period in which the policyholder received the claim and (2) “as soon as practicable.” Otherwise, the claim may be denied because of late notice. The New Jersey Appellate Division determined that six months or more is not “as soon as practicable.” Continue reading “No Prejudice in New Jersey Needed to Bar Coverage to Sophisticated Insured for Delay in Notice Under Claims-Made Policy”

August 19, 2014September 10, 2014 by Duane Morris

Six-Month Delay Bars Coverage in NJ Under Claims-Made Policy

For a claims-made policy, the policy holder is to provide notice of a claim: (1) during the same policy period in which the policyholder received the claim and (2) “as soon as practicable.” Otherwise, the claim may be denied because of late notice. New Jersey has determined that six months or more is not “as soon as practicable.”

Holding: The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, held in Templo Fuente de Vida Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, P.A., that: (1) notice of a claim was not provided “as soon as practicable” when sent six months after service on the insured of the underlying complaint and (2) an insurer on a claims-made policy does not have to show that it was prejudiced by the late notice.

Continue reading “Six-Month Delay Bars Coverage in NJ Under Claims-Made Policy”

August 6, 2014September 9, 2014 by Philip R. Matthews

Third Circuit Issues Decision Concerning Medicare Secondary Payer Act in New Jersey

On July 29, 2014, the Third Circuit issued an interesting court decision concerning the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP) that may provide guidance to the parties in tort litigation, particularly in New Jersey tort litigation, in a case styled Taransky v. United States. The Taransky case involved a slip and fall accident involving a settlement by a tortfeasor who tried to resolve the Medicare lien in the settlement process. The case pitted two statutes against each other, the Medicare Secondary Payer Act and a New Jersey statute prohibiting tort claimants from recovery twice under medical insurance and liability insurance. In the end, the Third Circuit found that the plaintiff had to reimburse Medicare from the tort settlement for medical bills incurred by Medicare. Continue reading “Third Circuit Issues Decision Concerning Medicare Secondary Payer Act in New Jersey”