Mount Laurel
Our firm established its first office in New Jersey in 1984. Since that time, the office has experienced consistent growth. The Mount Laurel office is staffed by many long-time residents of New Jersey who handle professional liability, product liability, property and casualty and workers' compensation litigation. The counties covered by this office include Mercer, Monmouth, Ocean, Burlington, Camden, Middlesex, Gloucester, Atlantic, Salem, Cumberland and Cape May.
The Mount Laurel office provides our clients with a dedicated defense litigation team of professionals backed by the intellectual property and broad-based experience of the entire firm, permitting localized and economical representation of insurers and self-insured clients.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Claims of Future Medical Expenses Must Be Examined Carefully During Discovery to Avoid Unnecessary Surprise at Trial
July 21, 2026
Often in actions involving injuries in New Jersey, a claim for future medical damages is made in tandem with any injury claim. Luckily, in January of 2026, the Appellate Division in the unpublished decision of Terrell v. Chitra provided insight as to when a plaintiff may actually recover future medical expenses. Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident wherein she claimed injuries to the neck, back, and right shoulder, with specific claims of cervical disc herniation. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon recommended she undergo a cervical discectomy and fusion, though she never took any substantial steps towards receiving the surgery. However, at the time of trial, Plaintiff testified that she wanted to have the surgery and the trial court permitted medical expert testimony regarding the need for surgery and the cost of same. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict of $1,300,000 - $1,000,000 for pain and suffering and $300,000 for future medical costs. On appeal, Defendant argued that the future medical costs were inadmissible due to: 1. plaintiff’s failure to disclose her intention on having the surgery; and 2. the introduction of the cost of the speculative future surgery tainted the jury’s pain and suffering award. The Appellate Division agreed and found that the plaintiff never made a definitive statement pre-trial that she would have the surgery, thus prejudicing the defendant. The court also found that the plaintiff expert’s opinion testimony regarding the future costs of the surgery were improper and tainted the overall value of the injuries and pain/suffering. Ultimately, the matter was remanded back to the trial court for an entirely new trial on damages, with a bar on introducing evidence of speculative future medical expenses. On June 2, 2026, the Supreme Court of New Jersey entered an order denying a petition for certification. See Terrell v. Chitra, 2026 N.J. LEXIS 536 (2026). At its core, the holding in Terrell is a reminder that trial counsel must proactively file motions in limine to bar claims for speculative future medical expenses. While Terrell is a motor vehicle accident case, the holding is equally as applicable to medical malpractice and long-term care matters where plaintiffs make claims regarding future care. Defense counsel should be certain to question plaintiffs at their deposition regarding any future surgeries and make specific evaluations of medical expert reports for the claimed costs of future treatment.
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.
