PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Professional Liability / New Jersey Federal Court: Policyholders Must Plead Specific Policy Provisions to Maintain Suits

New Jersey Federal Court: Policyholders Must Plead Specific Policy Provisions to Maintain Suits

March 24, 2023 by Kevin Major

In Law Office of Drew J. Bauman v. Hanover Insurance Co., the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey affirmed that policyholders must allege, under New Jersey law, the specific provisions of the insurance policy in order to state a claim for relief under the insurance contract. In doing so, the court bolstered the growing national judicial trend of restricting policyholder coverage litigation to those involving specific allegations of a carrier’s purported breach of contract, not lawsuits based on general policyholder grievances regarding a particular claim.

This case arose in 2019 following Bauman’s legal representation of James Woerner in a real estate transaction, which led to Woerner’s suit for legal malpractice. Bauman requested coverage for the suit under his professional liability insurance policy with Hanover. After Hanover declined multiple requests, Bauman sued Hanover for breach of contract and declaratory judgment.

Hanover moved to dismiss Bauman’s complaint, arguing, among other things, that Bauman’s complaint “failed to allege any facts concerning the terms of the Policy, or how the Policy was breached” and “failed to allege what, if any, damages” resulted from the breach. The court agreed and dismissed Bauman’s complaint.

In support of its ruling, the court reasoned that, while Bauman’s complaint referred to the insurance policy, the policyholder did not attach the policy to the complaint nor did the policyholder quote from, or even cite, the specific policy provisions. The court’s decision is consistent with the approach of other states, like Florida, that refuse generalized complaints against insurance carriers that do not specifically allege the portions of insurance contracts that have allegedly been breached. In doing so, courts in these states are clarifying that insurance contracts should be treated the same as any other contract once the contract becomes the subject of a court proceeding.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Known Means Known: Eleventh Circuit Requires Actual Knowledge to Trigger Insured’s Notice Obligation

Next Article »

Florida Overhauls Bad Faith Law, Repeals One-Way Attorneys’ Fee Statutes, Adopts Modified Comparative Negligence and Other Tort Reforms

About Kevin Major

Kevin Major Jr. is an attorney at Carlton Fields in Orlando, Florida. Connect with Kevin on LinkedIn.

Related Articles

  1. Texas Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Civil Authority Orders Issued in Preparation for Hurricane Harvey Because They Were Not Issued as a Result of Physical Loss or Property Damage
  2. Texas Federal Court Finds No Coverage Under Crime Policy for Phishing Scheme Because Insured Did Not “Hold” Diverted Funds and Suffered No Direct Loss
  3. Louisiana Supreme Court Finds “Assault and Battery Exclusion” Barred Coverage for Kidnapping at Insured’s Motel
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Connecticut Federal Court Construes Ambiguous Policy Exclusion in Favor of Coverage, but Rejects Bad Faith Claim
  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing