Ariel, a shareholder in the Casualty Department, focuses his practice on insurance fraud and Special Investigation Unit (SIU) litigation with particular emphasis on large loss fraud and medical provider fraud. His practice in the area of fraud investigation consists of assessing and analyzing fraud by both medical providers and falsified claims brought by his client's insureds. In doing so, Ariel has represented a significant number of insurance carriers on these issues and has assisted in multi-million dollar high-profile medical provider fraud investigations and law suits in various states.
Moreover, Ariel has litigated on behalf of many different clients in favor of protecting the interests of insurance carriers in court seeking to disclaim coverage for fraudulent claims. He has taken numerous comprehensive Examinations Under Oath on SIU-related issues throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In particular, he has assisted in several high-value and high-profile matters regarding carrier recovery of monies paid to fraudulent medical providers and fraudulent motor vehicle accidents. Furthermore, Ariel has litigated extensive insurance fraud and other personal injury protection related matters in the National Arbitration Forum (NAF)/Forthright and Superior Court for his clients.
During his career, Ariel has handled several high value cases on behalf of his clients. In one particular case, the amount sought by the Claimant was denied by the arbitrator due material misrepresentations made by the insured regarding his prior medical history and his injuries at the time of the subject loss during an Examination Under Oath, conducted by Ariel. In another matter, Ariel successfully argued that a claimant was subject to a personal injury protection benefit limit selected by the named insured, a live-in boyfriend and the amount demanded, was denied.
Prior to joining the firm, Ariel served as a law clerk for the Honorable Richard Geiger in Cumberland County Superior Court. His responsibilities included researching criminal law precedence, reviewing memoranda and pre-trial motions, and mediating civil lawsuits.
Thought Leadership
Legal Update for Fraud/Special Investigation
SIU Gets a Boost: NJ Supreme Court Affirms Insurers' Right to Litigate, Not Arbitrate, Fraud Claims
July 21, 2026
In a significant win for insurers' Special Investigation Units, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified that statutory insurance fraud and racketeering claims may proceed in court rather than through PIP arbitration. At issue was whether insurance fraud claims brought under New Jersey's Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA) and the state's Anti-Racketeering Act (NJ RICO) are subject to mandatory arbitration under the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act’s (AICRA) PIP dispute-resolution framework. Allstate had sued a network of medical practices, physicians, and related corporate entities, alleging a scheme to extract more than $1.7 million in PIP benefits through fraudulent and misleading billing. The trial court dismissed Allstate's complaint and compelled arbitration, reading AICRA's arbitration clause — which covers "any dispute regarding the recovery of... benefits" under PIP coverage, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1(a) — as sweeping in fraud and racketeering claims along with routine benefit disputes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal, adopting Judge Gilson's opinion below (480 N.J. Super. 566 (App. Div. 2025)) as its own reasoning. The Court held that IFPA and RICO claims fall outside the scope of AICRA's PIP arbitration mechanism because that "streamlined and specialized" process cannot grant the relief those statutes contemplate — treble damages, injunctive relief, broad discovery, and joinder of third parties — and because arbitrators lack authority to award compensatory or treble damages to an insurer. The Court also rejected the argument that Allstate's own Decision Point Review Plans independently compel arbitration, finding those plan provisions no broader than AICRA's own arbitration clause. Notably, the Court expressly disagreed with the Third Circuit's contrary holding in GEICO v. Mt. Prospect Chiropractic Center, 98 F.4th 463 (3d Cir. 2024), concluding it is not bound by that federal interpretation of New Jersey law. Insurers retain the right to pursue IFPA and RICO claims in the Law Division, with a jury trial. For SIU units and NJ insurance carriers, this decision is a significant win: it forecloses defense clinics' primary procedural tool for shunting fraud investigations into limited-scope PIP arbitration, where treble damages, RICO relief, and meaningful discovery were never realistically available. Carriers building cases against fraudulently structured clinics, straw-owned practices, or coordinated billing networks can now proceed with confidence that a well-pleaded IFPA/RICO complaint stays in the Law Division rather than being diverted to arbitration on a motion to compel. Practically, this strengthens SIU's leverage in settlement negotiations, preserves civil discovery tools (subpoenas, depositions, joinder of related corporate entities) critical to unwinding complex ownership and referral schemes, and resolves the split with the Third Circuit in favor of NJ insurers — at least as a matter of state law. Expect increased reliance on IFPA civil actions, rather than PIP arbitration demands, as SIU's primary enforcement vehicle going forward.
Case Law Alerts
Minnesota Court of Appeals Upholds Insurance‑Fraud Conviction, Validating Industry Fraud‑Impact Testimony
July 20, 2026
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed Mark Jenni's insurance fraud conviction, which arose after he certified a Park Rapids property as his primary residence on a Liberty Mutual homeowner's policy and then filed an $80,000-plus burglary claim he never reported to the sheriff—on a property where he had previously submitted denied claims through a different carrier. On appeal, Jenni argued prosecutorial misconduct, contending the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony that roughly 10% of claims are non-meritorious and that fraud costs run into the "billions" ultimately borne by consumers. He also claimed that closing arguments improperly appealed to Hubbard County jurors' financial self-interest. The court rejected both arguments, holding the investigator's testimony was relevant to establish his background and context, finding that the prosecutor's "cost to consumers" framing explained why application misrepresentations are criminalized rather than urging conviction on community-interest grounds. For the industry, the decision is favorable to SIU and fraud-prosecution efforts: it endorses carrier fraud-investigator testimony about industry-wide fraud prevalence and cost as admissible context, and it gives prosecutors latitude to argue the downstream consumer-cost rationale without crossing into impermissible community-conscience appeals. The practical takeaway for carriers and SIU referrals is that the "fraud drives up everyone's premiums" narrative—long a staple of fraud-bureau messaging—has now been validated as proper evidentiary and argumentative framing, at least in Minnesota.
