Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
May 23, 2022
Judgment Debtor Can Sue Indigent Defendant’s Insurer

New Jersey Statute Allows Suit Against Insurer Who Advised its Insured No Coverage Years After Denial

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gyWjUVKg and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4200 posts.
But, is this a Waste of Time & Money?

Steven D’Agostino appealed from trial court orders dismissing his complaint in Steven D’agostino v. Colony Insurance Company, Lake Poulton, Poulton & Associates, LLC, and The Lawyers’ Fund For Client Protection, No. A-5331-18, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (May 17, 2022) dealt with the effect of a New Jersey Statute on a suit by a judgment debtor of an insured whose claim was rejected.
FACTS

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges the following facts, which, like the trial court, the appellate court accepted as true for purposes of the motion. In February 2002, plaintiff retained Laurence Hecker, a solo practitioner licensed in New Jersey, to represent him in connection with an employment matter. Despite harboring some initial skepticism as to Hecker’s ability to handle the case, plaintiff claims he decided to retain Hecker once the lawyer represented “he was ‘a PC’ with ‘half a million dollars’ worth of malpractice insurance.”

Plaintiff’s employment matter went against him and, in September 2006, proceeding pro se, he filed a legal malpractice action against Hecker. In 2009, a jury determined Hecker had been negligent in his representation of plaintiff and awarded plaintiff $330,000 in damages, along with pre-judgment interest. Plaintiff claims Hecker reportedly told two different pretrial judges he had no insurance carrier.

Defendant Colony Insurance Company issued a $1,000,000 claims made professional liability policy to Hecker for a one year period beginning March 16, 2006 – six months before plaintiff filed suit. The retroactive date for that policy, however, was March 16, 2006, the first day of the policy period. Colony declined Hecker’s request for defense and indemnification under the policy.

Plaintiff was unable to recover the $330,000 judgment from Hecker. In 2011, plaintiff filed a claim with the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, that denied plaintiff’s claim.

Hecker died in May 2017, and, over the course of the next year, plaintiff obtained access to several boxes of Hecker’s personal and business records. After reviewing the records, plaintiff claims he learned Hecker had malpractice insurance in place during the pendency of the malpractice suit. Plaintiff subsequently called Poulton, which informed him that Colony had denied Hecker’s claim for coverage “because the retroactive date of Hecker’s policy did not go back far enough to cover” the conduct underlying the malpractice suit. Colony refused to provide any information and claimed it only kept records for ten years.

Colony and Poulton successfully moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing plaintiff lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and any derivative claims were time-barred. Poulton also argued plaintiff had not stated a viable claim against the company because, as an independent insurance broker, it was not liable for an insurance carrier’s coverage decision.

The court found plaintiff’s status was more akin to a judgment creditor. The trial court found plaintiff’s claim was “essentially a bad faith claim against the insurance carrier and the broker,” which is not cognizable by an individual or entity that is not the insured or an assignee of the insured’s contract rights.
ANALYSIS

As a general rule an individual or entity that is a stranger to an insurance policy has no right to recover the policy proceeds. But, the appellate court concluded, that the general rule does not apply here. N.J.S.A. 17:28-2 provides an injured person may maintain an action against an insurer when his judgment against the insured tortfeasor remains unsatisfied due to insolvency, which plaintiff’s complaint alleges here.

The trial court was correct plaintiff is not an intended third-party beneficiary in the traditional sense. Nor is he an assignee of Hecker’s contract rights entitling him to sue on the policy. But, the court concluded, he has plainly stated a claim as a third-party beneficiary by virtue of the direct action statute with standing to sue Colony on the policy

Accordingly, the appellate court concluded that the judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for lack of standing against Colony must be reversed. While Colony has raised potential defenses it may have to plaintiff’s claim, assuming plaintiff can establish Hecker’s insolvency – asserting plaintiff can look to the limit of the policy proceeds to satisfy his judgment under N.J.S.A. 17:28-2, only if coverage is available, [and] only if plaintiff does so within the statutory limitations period – the viability of those defenses will have to await discovery.

Colony’s assertion that plaintiff’s claim is time-barred was not clear to the court on this record when plaintiff’s claim accrued under N.J.S.A. 17:28-2.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has noted that “[w]hile the injured person has no greater right under the policy than has the assured, he has ‘a cause of action the moment he is injured’ which ripens into a right of action when he recovers a judgment against the assured whose insolvency is proved by the return of an execution unsatisfied.” Dransfield, 5 N.J. at 194 (quoting Century Indemnity Co. v. Norbut, 117 N.J. Eq. 584, 587 (Ch. 1935); aff’d, 120 N.J. Eq. 337 (E. & A. 1936)).

Plaintiff has only stated a claim against Colony under N.J.S.A. 17:28-2, he has come nowhere near proving one. Finally, we likewise find plaintiff has stated a claim against Poulton and Poulton & Associates for the broker’s negligent failure to procure the appropriate professional liability coverage. A broker has a duty of care to foreseeable third parties injured by the broker’s negligence in failing to secure appropriate insurance coverage.

Although it is certainly possible plaintiff will not be able to prove Poulton failed to secure the coverage Hecker asked for or expected, or that any such cause of action is timely, plaintiff has stated the claim and should thus be permitted the opportunity to try to prove it.
ZALMA OPINION

Trial and appellate courts tend to give a great deal of consideration to actions brought by pro se plaintiffs. Although Mr. D’Agostino successfully sued his lawyer for malpractice he was unable to collect on his judgment. Only when the lawyer defendant died did he obtain information that indicated the lawyer was insured at the time of his trial although the insurer disclaimed coverage he sued the insurer and insurance broker to attempt to collect his old judgment. He lost on a motion to dismiss only to have the appellate court send the case back down for gathering evidence which, very probably, will result in a judgment in favor of the insurer and broker defendants because the case is old and Hecker, now dead, has no assets. A waste of court, lawyer, and defendant time.

(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected].

Subscribe to Zalma on Insurance at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.local.com/subscribe.

Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.

Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.

Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
September 18, 2026
Expert May Only Testify to What Experience Supports

Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.

Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html

In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.

The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.

Law

The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...

00:03:10
September 17, 2026
Convicted on 29 Tax-Refund-Fraud Counts

150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846

Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.

FACTS

In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS

Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.

The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...

00:05:23
September 14, 2026
Court Enforces Fifth Amendment & Refuses to Compel Answers

Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution

Post 5489

Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr

In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.

Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.

After Great American ...

00:05:14
7 hours ago
Announcement About False Claims Act Settlement Results in Damages Suit

Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled

No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.

Post 4855

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.

From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...

post photo preview
October 01, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter – October 1, 2026

Another Anniversary for Barry Zalma, Inc

Posted on October 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
From October 1, 1979 – 2026

Post 4854

Read the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ZIFL-10-01-2026.pdf Forty seven years ago today I left the world of the employed and became an entrepreneur by opening my own law firm. The law practice was incorporated shortly thereafter as Barry Zalma, Inc.

When I opened for business on October 1, 1979, I had no clients and no certainty that I would have any in the future. I had borrowed money from the bank to carry me through the first six months and was concerned about my ability to pay the loan with my third child about to be born.

Much to my surprise and pleasure, on October 1, 1979, at 8:10 a.m., the best claims handler in the London market, Alan Warboys, called from London and provided me with my first case as an independent lawyer to represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. He, and the Lloyd’s Underwriters he represented, showed faith in me as a lawyer and insurance expert. Alan is now, although ...

post photo preview
September 30, 2026
Suing for Services Provided, and Paid for, is Fraud

Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment

Post 4854

Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.

Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW

Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals