The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 100, 101, 102 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 99, 105, 107 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 103, 104 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION in this action, plaintiffs National Health Care Associates, Inc. (NHA), a health care management company, and its 26 corporate nursing home affiliates allege that defendants Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty), Arch Insurance Company (Arch), Prism Consultants, LLC (Prism), Asher Schoor and Ettie Schoor (Schoors; principals of Prism), Arlington Insurance Company, Ltd. (Arlington), Woodbury CC, LLC (Woodbury), Comp Control Insurance Company SPC (CCIC) and Comp Control, LLC (Comp Control) orchestrated an elaborate, unlawful and fraudulent insurance scheme against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs asset in the complaint nine causes of action, including fraudulent inducement, negligent representation, breach of contract, as well as violations of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont insurance and consumer fraud statutes. In motion sequence number 002, Liberty and Arlington seek to dismiss the claims against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7). In motion sequence number 003, Arch seeks to dismiss the claims against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (5) and (7). In motion sequence number 004, Prism, Woodbury, CCIC, Comp Control and the Schoors (Prism Group) seek to dismiss the claims against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), (7) and (8). I. Background and Procedural History Plaintiffs allege the following facts in the complaint and, for the purposes of these motions to dismiss, are accepted as true. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a willful scheme to subvert the insurance laws of New York, Connecticut, Vermont and New Jersey by requiring plaintiffs to enter into unapproved agreements and letters of credit that substantially altered the rates in plaintiffs’ regulator-approved insurance policies (NYSCEF Doc. No. [NYSCEF] 2, 47). Plaintiffs allege that defendants sold to plaintiffs unapproved workers’ compensation insurance policies1 masquerading as approved guaranteed cost policies (GC policies)2 (id.). In 2003, plaintiffs engaged defendant Prism as an insurance intermediary to assist plaintiffs with their search for workers’ compensation insurance (id., 117). Defendants “Asher Schoor and Ettie Schoor (respectively CEO and President of Prism) were the primary correspondents for the Defendants” (id., 118). The Schoors informed plaintiffs about programs that “utilized a potentially beneficial captive reinsurance structure” (Programs), saving plaintiffs money as plaintiffs “would acquire profit-sharing interests in the captive and its underlying segregated cells”3 (id., 119). Plaintiffs informed the Schoors that they “would only be interested in the Programs if Plaintiffs were the only insured policyholders, so that Plaintiffs would not be paying for losses at facilities they did not own or manage” (id., 120). In November 2004, the Schoors presented NHA with Liberty’s Programs, which included Liberty’s GC policies and the captive reinsurance program (id., 122). Specifically, the Schoors emailed NHA a proposal that described Liberty’s Programs which included the establishment of defendant Comp Control, purportedly to be owned solely by NHA’s affiliates, to serve as the participant in a “segregated cell” in defendant Arlington, a captive offshore reinsurer (id.,
122-130). Relying on the Schoors representations, plaintiffs agreed to enter the Liberty Programs (id., 136). That same month, Liberty issued GC Policies to plaintiffs under which they paid at least $18 million in premiums to Liberty (2004 to 2008) and at least $59 million in premiums to Arch (2008 to 2015) (id.,
