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
August 27, 2026
Offer Made and Accepted Creates Enforceable Contract

Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim

Post 5434

Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute

In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange,  The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.

Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...

00:08:28
August 26, 2026
Offer Made and Accepted Creates Enforceable Contract

Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim

Post 5434

Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute

In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange,  The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.

Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...

00:08:28
July 22, 2026
The Real Cost of Fraud

The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407

Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv

This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.

This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.

After ...

00:12:33
16 hours ago
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim

Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged

Post 5488

Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma

ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.

See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html

In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.

South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...

post photo preview
16 hours ago

Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim

Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged

Post 5488

ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.

See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html

In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.

South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.

After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.

LAW

Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...

September 10, 2026
Failure to Plead a Facially Plausible Claim Requires Dismissal

Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith

Post 5487

Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.

Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...

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