BAR REPORT - Capitol Report
Bill prohibiting fiduciary duty standard to insurance producers advances
February 25, 2019 at 10:37 AM
4 minute read
This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.
Bill prohibiting fiduciary duty standard to insurance producers advances
A bill that would prohibit any cause of action by any person or entity against an insurance producer in certain transactions from civil liability or breach of their fiduciary standards has advanced in the Senate. Sponsored by Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, S-2475/A-2034 would prohibit an insurance policy holder from suing an insurance producer for breach of their fiduciary duty or fiduciary relationship, except in very narrow circumstances. It also restricts the people who may execute an affidavit of merit to pursue such lawsuits to New Jersey licensed brokers. Under the affidavit of merit statute, only insurance producers would enjoy such protections.
The New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) opposes this legislation, believing it is an unnecessary expansion of the affidavit of merit statute and an abrogation of current case law on the issue. The NJSBA urged amendments to curtail the expansion of these protections and remains optimistic the bill will be further amended.
The bill is designed to modify current case law in New Jersey regarding the fiduciary duty owed by insurance brokers, as held by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Aden v. Fortsh, 169 N.J. 64 (2001).
In Aden, the insurance broker admitted to not having read the policy before procuring it for the policyholders. The insurance broker proffered that nevertheless, the policyholders should have read the policy before purchasing the insurance. After a fire damaged the condo owned by the policyholders, and the policyholders learned the insurance they purchased would not cover the entire damage, the policyholders sued the insurance broker for professional malpractice in failing to advise of the limited coverage under the insurance policy. In a majority opinion delivered by Justice James R. Zazzali, the Supreme Court held that “the comparative negligence defense is unavailable to a professional insurance broker who asserts the client failed to read the policy and failed to detect the broker's own negligence. It is the broker, not the insured, who is the expert, and the client is entitled to rely on the professional's expertise in faithfully performing the very job he or she was hired to do.”
The Professional Insurance Agents of New Jersey (PIANJ) testified before the Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee regarding their obligations, which they say remains unclear, to service their clients. This results in higher professional liability premiums, according to a spokesperson from PIANJ.
Amendments have been made to require insurance producers exercise ordinary and reasonable care and skill in issuing property and casualty insurance policies; create an exception from the bill's protections for insurance producers from civil liability under the standards governing the conduct of a fiduciary in situations in which the conduct upon which the cause of action is based involves the wrongful retention or misappropriation of any money that was received by the insurance producer as a premium deposit or as payment of a claim; clarify that the bill does not limit or prevent an insurance producer from asserting any defenses available at common law; provide that in an action for damages against an insurance broker, the requirements relative to producing an affidavit apply regardless of the damages sought; and clarify that the bill does not limit or prohibit the commissioner of the Department of Banking and Insurance from finding, imposing or enforcing a fiduciary duty upon an insurance broker pursuant to state and federal laws, rules or regulations, or an order of the commissioner.
Concerns expressed by the NJSBA have been conveyed to the sponsors, and the NJSBA continues to monitor the bill.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'I've Worked Until 2 in the Morning': Lawyers Brace for Trump Policy
6 minute readGOP Trifecta in Washington Could Put Litigation Finance Industry Under Pressure
Lowenstein Hires Ex-FTX US General Counsel Ryne Miller to Lead Its Commodities, Derivatives Practice
3 minute readMany Lawyers Are Reeling From Election Results, but Leaders Are Staying Mum
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250