Ariel, a shareholder in the Casualty Department, focuses his practice on insurance fraud and Special Investigation Unit (SIU) litigation with particular emphasis on large loss fraud and medical provider fraud. His practice in the area of fraud investigation consists of assessing and analyzing fraud by both medical providers and falsified claims brought by his client's insureds. In doing so, Ariel has represented a significant number of insurance carriers on these issues and has assisted in multi-million dollar high-profile medical provider fraud investigations and law suits in various states.
Moreover, Ariel has litigated on behalf of many different clients in favor of protecting the interests of insurance carriers in court seeking to disclaim coverage for fraudulent claims. He has taken numerous comprehensive Examinations Under Oath on SIU-related issues throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In particular, he has assisted in several high-value and high-profile matters regarding carrier recovery of monies paid to fraudulent medical providers and fraudulent motor vehicle accidents. Furthermore, Ariel has litigated extensive insurance fraud and other personal injury protection related matters in the National Arbitration Forum (NAF)/Forthright and Superior Court for his clients.
During his career, Ariel has handled several high value cases on behalf of his clients. In one particular case, the amount sought by the Claimant was denied by the arbitrator due material misrepresentations made by the insured regarding his prior medical history and his injuries at the time of the subject loss during an Examination Under Oath, conducted by Ariel. In another matter, Ariel successfully argued that a claimant was subject to a personal injury protection benefit limit selected by the named insured, a live-in boyfriend and the amount demanded, was denied.
Prior to joining the firm, Ariel served as a law clerk for the Honorable Richard Geiger in Cumberland County Superior Court. His responsibilities included researching criminal law precedence, reviewing memoranda and pre-trial motions, and mediating civil lawsuits.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Fifth Circuit Enforces Deception Fraud Sublimit in Email Spoofing Loss Case
November 3, 2026
In Blue Compass RV, L.L.C. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., No. 25-10894 (5th Cir. June 5, 2026), the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a policyholder's suit seeking full crime-policy coverage after it wired $1,251,068.34 to a fraudster who had spoofed an email from its contractor with revised banking instructions. Blue Compass argued the loss should fall under its policy's higher-limit Computer and Funds Transfer Fraud provisions ($2,000,000), rather than the narrower Deception Fraud Insuring Agreement ($100,000, subject to a $25,000 retention), on the theory that the fraudster wasn't impersonating a "Vendor" as the policy defined that term. The court disagreed, holding the scheme fit squarely within Deception Fraud — an email impersonating a known business relation to induce payment — and that the policy's exclusion barring recovery under other insuring agreements for losses "resulting directly or indirectly from Deception Fraud" controlled, capping recovery at the $100,000 sublimit the insurer had already paid; the insurer's early tender of that amount, paired with a clean denial of the balance, left the insured without a viable bad-faith claim once the court read the policy's defined terms literally, and the case is a useful reminder for carriers to keep Deception/Social Engineering Fraud definitions and their cross-referenced exclusions tightly drafted, since that precise interplay is what defeated both the coverage and bad-faith claims here.
Legal Update for Fraud/Special Investigation
SIU Gets a Boost: NJ Supreme Court Affirms Insurers' Right to Litigate, Not Arbitrate, Fraud Claims
July 21, 2026
In a significant win for insurers' Special Investigation Units, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified that statutory insurance fraud and racketeering claims may proceed in court rather than through PIP arbitration. At issue was whether insurance fraud claims brought under New Jersey's Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA) and the state's Anti-Racketeering Act (NJ RICO) are subject to mandatory arbitration under the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act’s (AICRA) PIP dispute-resolution framework. Allstate had sued a network of medical practices, physicians, and related corporate entities, alleging a scheme to extract more than $1.7 million in PIP benefits through fraudulent and misleading billing. The trial court dismissed Allstate's complaint and compelled arbitration, reading AICRA's arbitration clause — which covers "any dispute regarding the recovery of... benefits" under PIP coverage, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1(a) — as sweeping in fraud and racketeering claims along with routine benefit disputes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal, adopting Judge Gilson's opinion below (480 N.J. Super. 566 (App. Div. 2025)) as its own reasoning. The Court held that IFPA and RICO claims fall outside the scope of AICRA's PIP arbitration mechanism because that "streamlined and specialized" process cannot grant the relief those statutes contemplate — treble damages, injunctive relief, broad discovery, and joinder of third parties — and because arbitrators lack authority to award compensatory or treble damages to an insurer. The Court also rejected the argument that Allstate's own Decision Point Review Plans independently compel arbitration, finding those plan provisions no broader than AICRA's own arbitration clause. Notably, the Court expressly disagreed with the Third Circuit's contrary holding in GEICO v. Mt. Prospect Chiropractic Center, 98 F.4th 463 (3d Cir. 2024), concluding it is not bound by that federal interpretation of New Jersey law. Insurers retain the right to pursue IFPA and RICO claims in the Law Division, with a jury trial. For SIU units and NJ insurance carriers, this decision is a significant win: it forecloses defense clinics' primary procedural tool for shunting fraud investigations into limited-scope PIP arbitration, where treble damages, RICO relief, and meaningful discovery were never realistically available. Carriers building cases against fraudulently structured clinics, straw-owned practices, or coordinated billing networks can now proceed with confidence that a well-pleaded IFPA/RICO complaint stays in the Law Division rather than being diverted to arbitration on a motion to compel. Practically, this strengthens SIU's leverage in settlement negotiations, preserves civil discovery tools (subpoenas, depositions, joinder of related corporate entities) critical to unwinding complex ownership and referral schemes, and resolves the split with the Third Circuit in favor of NJ insurers — at least as a matter of state law. Expect increased reliance on IFPA civil actions, rather than PIP arbitration demands, as SIU's primary enforcement vehicle going forward.
