The Insurance Agents and Brokers Defense Practice Group at Marshall Dennehey is nationally recognized for its skillful representation of insurance professionals in complex civil litigation. With decades of collective experience, our attorneys provide sophisticated, results-driven defense to insurance agents, brokers, managing general agents, and other intermediaries facing professional liability claims. We understand the intricate regulatory frameworks, contractual obligations, and industry standards that govern the insurance marketplace, allowing us to craft defenses that reflect both legal prowess and practical business insight.
Our team regularly defends clients in claims alleging negligence, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, failure to procure coverage, and errors in policy placement or renewal. We also handle disputes arising from alleged bad faith, premium miscalculations, claims denial and compliance violations. Whether the matter involves a single claim or a multi-jurisdictional class action, our attorneys have the depth of knowledge and trial experience necessary to protect our clients’ reputations and minimize their exposure.
Beyond litigation, our practice group emphasizes proactive risk management and claim prevention. We partner with insurance agencies and brokerages to conduct internal audits, develop best practices, and deliver training on evolving industry risks, emerging coverage issues, and regulatory developments. This preventative approach reflects our broader commitment to supporting our clients as trusted advisors, not just defenders, throughout the life of their businesses.
At Marshall Dennehy we understand that every claim against an insurance professional carries significant professional and reputational consequences. Our clients rely on us for strategic, efficient, and discreet representation that aligns with their long-term business goals. By combining deep industry knowledge with vigorous advocacy and an unwavering commitment to service, our Insurance Agents and Brokers Defense Practice Group stands at the forefront of protecting the professionals who keep the insurance industry moving.
Results
Philadelphia Commerce Court Grants Summary Judgment, Dismissing $2M Unfair‑Competition and Tortious‑Interference Claims
We obtained summary judgment dismissal, following Oral Argument, in a Philadelphia Commerce Court commercial litigation matter involving allegations of unfair competition and tortious inference with contract and business relationships, brought by one adult day care center against our client, a competing adult day care facility. The plaintiff’s suit stemmed from alleged violation of regulations set forth by the Pennsylvania Department of Aging and its Office of Long-Term Living. The plaintiff’s final demand was $2 million, and no settlement offers were made before the trial court granted summary judgment.
Montgomery County Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Insurance Broker
We obtained dismissal of our insurance broker client on Motion for Summary Judgment in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, on the basis of no duty breached, and lack of causation. Claimants asserted a professional negligence theory for allegedly allowing a commercial insurance policy to lapse, failing to notify the policyholder claimant of the lapse or cancellation, and allowing a subsequent gap in coverage to exist after the policy cancelled, when an underlying loss occurred. However, after completed discovery depositions and expert discovery, we successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing the policy cancelled because of the policyholder’s own failure to comply with premium audit requirements, rather than any liability or breach of standard of care by the insurance broker.
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Insurance Agents & Brokers
New Jersey Supreme Court Clarifies That Insurance Brokers, Producers, and Agents Are Not Exempt from Consumer Fraud Act Liability
August 25, 2026
On July 15, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an opinion in James G. Lowe, M.D. v. Bernard Audet, wherein the Court addressed many prior conflicting opinions and held that insurance brokers, producers and agents are not exempt from the Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et. seq., under the “learned professional” exception as “semi-professionals” or otherwise. This opinion reversed a decision from the trial court and Appellate Division where the trial judge determined that insurance brokers, producers, and agents are exempt. The Supreme Court further indicates in a footnote “to the extent there is any distinction between insurance brokers, insurance producers, and insurance agents, none of those occupations are exempt from the CFA under any exception.” Plaintiff was a neurosurgeon who co-owned the medical practice he worked at, as well as several other unrelated businesses. The defendants were insurance brokers and producers who marketed, sold, produced and procured policies to and for Plaintiff and his medical practice for thirteen years. Such policies included loss related to disability. The defendants failed to advise plaintiff that business interests that were not related to his medical practice may have an effect on any benefits claims. However, plaintiff alleges he was advised by the defendants that, should he become disabled, he would receive maximum benefits under the policies. In 2021, plaintiff was diagnosed with a permanent vision condition that prevented him from performing neurosurgery. When the claim was made for maximum benefits under the policies plaintiff purchased from the defendants, only partial benefits were paid due to the other business interests plaintiff was involved in that were unrelated to his medical practice. Plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, which included a claim for violation of the CFA by negligently failing to obtain sufficient disability insurance for the plaintiff. At the trial court level, the judge relied upon Plemmons v. Blue Chip Ins. Serv., Inc., 387 N.J. Super. 551 (App. Div. 2006) (holding that insurance brokers are “semi-professionals,” and are “excluded from liability under the CFA for the services they render within the scope of their professional licenses”), but acknowledged the competing appellate decision of Shaw v Shand, 460 N.J. Super. 592 (App. Div. 2019) (holding that the “learned professional” exemption is limited to “those professionals who have historically been recognized as ‘learned’ based on the requirement of extensive learning or erudition”). The Supreme Court went through the history of opinions which addressed and set the standards for which the CFA applies and where there are exceptions for both “learned professionals” and “semi-professionals.” Ultimately, the Court ruled that insurance brokers do not fall under either the learned professional or semi-professional exception, and that semi-professionals like insurance brokers, producers and agents are not exempt from the CFA.
Legal Updates for Insurance Agents & Brokers
Florida Second DCA Clarifies the Timing of Negligence Claims Against Insurance Brokers
August 25, 2026
One of the recurring issues in insurance broker malpractice litigation is determining when a negligence claim against a broker becomes ripe. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal recently addressed that question in Bullington Insurance Group, LLC v. Gordon, 427 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2026), reaffirming that a negligence claim against an insurance broker does not accrue while a related coverage dispute with the insurer remains pending. In Bullington, the plaintiff was employed as a driver and was involved in an auto accident. His employer's insurance broker had requested that he be added to the employer's commercial policy, and the insurer confirmed the addition. However, when the policy renewed, the plaintiff was not listed as a driver and was not covered at the time of the accident. Default judgments were entered against the plaintiff and his employer in litigation arising from the accident. The plaintiff then filed suit against the insurer for breach of contract and policy reformation, and separately against the broker for negligence. The broker moved to dismiss the negligence count as premature, arguing the coverage dispute with the insurer had to be resolved first. The trial court denied the motion. The Second District granted certiorari and quashed the order. Applying its 2014 decision in Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc. v. Blackshear, 136 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), the court held that the negligence claim against the broker was entirely dependent on a finding that the accident was not covered under the employer's policy. If coverage were established, the claim against the broker would fail as a matter of course. Because the breach of contract and reformation claims against the insurer remained pending, the negligence count against the broker had not yet accrued. The court further addressed the appropriate remedy, rejecting the plaintiff's argument that abatement was warranted. The court distinguished cases holding that abatement is proper in the bad faith context, where an insured brings both an underlying coverage claim and a bad faith claim against the same insurer. Here, the broker and insurer were separate defendants, and Blackshear squarely held that dismissal without prejudice, not abatement, is the proper remedy for a premature broker negligence claim. This decision reinforces the practical significance of sequencing in insurance-related litigation. Where a plaintiff asserts simultaneous claims against both a carrier and a broker, defense counsel for the broker should promptly move to dismiss the broker negligence count as premature. Failure by the trial court to grant such relief constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.
