In sum, the plaintiff applied for insurance and represented that she, as the owner, would reside in the premises. The insurer’s guidelines state that it would issue a policy if the premises is owner occupied, and therefore, the insurer issued the policy. The policy was renewed for several years and during that time, the insurance company was purchased/succeeded by another insurance company. Thereafter, the premises suffered a fire and the new insurer discovered that the plaintiff did not reside at the premises and denied the claim. The plaintiff argued that the new insurer cannot deny coverage based on its predecessor’s guidelines, because it cannot prove the guidelines were material to its decision to keep and renew the insurance policy. The court disagreed and found the predecessor’s guidelines prove materiality of the misrepresentation when the misrepresentation was made.

This decision would be very useful to attorneys who practice in New York and through the country with a focus on first-party insurance since this is a somewhat common occurrence when an insurance company assumes the book of business from a predecessor. Such a decision also reiterates Mound Cotton’s prowess in defending insurance professionals in high-stakes litigation

Ethics in negotiations involve a balance between a lawyer’s obligations of honesty and candor with zealous client advocacy, pursuant to the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility and relevant state provisions. Whether in a transactional or litigated settlement context, lawyers may often find themselves in gray areas. Jonathan will focus on Understanding the Ethics of Negotiation during his presentation, including a review of the relevant Model Rules of Professions Responsibility and state provision, a deep dive into understanding how the ethical rules impact negotiation, and an analysis of hypothetical scenarios in legal practice.

To learn more, reach out to Jonathan directly at jgross@moundcotton.com.

Reach out to Amy at AKallal@moundcotton.com or Elizabeth at EZakheim@moundcotton.com to learn more.

For more information, reach out to Tom at tbreen@moundcotton.com.

To learn more, reach out to Ray directly at rmastrangelo@moundcotton.com.

Their session, “California Wildfires,” will provide an essential update on the current status of claims, explore the coverages most affected, and highlight emerging legal cases shaping the response to these catastrophic events. Kristen and Matthew will also offer their perspectives on what remains unknown and how insurers can prepare for the challenges ahead as claims continue to develop. The discussion will take place at 1:30 PM ET, both in person at Norton Rose Fulbright in New York and via livestream, making it accessible for professionals nationwide seeking to better understand the complexities surrounding wildfire claims and coverage issues.

This session is part of AIRROC’s commitment to equipping claims professionals, underwriters, and legal counsel with actionable insights to manage complex, high-stakes claims efficiently. We are proud to see Kristen and Matthew sharing their knowledge and leading this timely conversation within the industry.

For more information on AIRROC’s Education Day agenda and registration, please visit .

Matthew’s presentation was moderated by Zurich staff and was followed by a Q&A session. Have questions about wildfire-related insurance claims? Connect with Matthew to continue the conversation.

The plaintiff sought treble damages under the CFA, claiming that the brokers misled him about the policies’ benefits and failed to disclose that income from his secondary medical-legal consulting work could impact eligibility for total disability benefits. On behalf of the insurance brokers and the agents, Mound Cotton Partners Barry R. Temkin and Kate E. DiGeronimo, along with Katharine Anne Lechleitner, successfully argued that insurance brokers are exempt from CFA liability under longstanding precedent. The Appellate Division agreed, affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the CFA claims with prejudice.

In its opinion, the court reaffirmed its 2006 decision in Plemmons v. Blue Chip Insurance Services, holding that insurance brokers qualify as “semi-professionals” subject to extensive regulation and licensure and are therefore excluded from CFA liability when performing brokerage services. The panel declined to follow the reasoning of a more recent case, Shaw v. Shand, which limited CFA exemptions to historically recognized “learned professionals,” noting that Shaw did not involve insurance brokers and did not overrule Plemmons. This decision confirms the continued application of the CFA exemption to licensed insurance brokers in New Jersey and clarifies that conflicting dicta in subsequent cases do not override binding precedent. It also reinforces Mound Cotton’s strong track record in defending insurance professionals in high-stakes litigation.

• Matthew Lasky: Hot Topics: Managing General Agents
• Guyon Knight: Reinsuring PFAS: Emerging Issues in the Next, Next Asbestos
• Kristen Kish: The Impact of Social Inflation
• Raymond Mastrangelo: Ethical Considerations In Claims Handling and Arbitrations
• 51����: Dispute Resolution: Tips, Strategies, and Best Practices
• Andrea Fort: Regulatory Differences Between the States

[button link="/wp-content/uploads/2024-Reins-Conf-Agenda.pdf" type="big"] VIEW AGENDA HERE[/button]

��

��

��