.

First-Party Property

There are few areas of the insurance industry that involve such direct and personal contact with insureds in their time of need than first-party claims that arise out of homeowner and commercial property policies. Unfortunately, there are few areas of insurance claims that generate more complaints and litigation. Even when an insurance company handles first-party property claims faultlessly and fairly, it is an unfortunate inevitability that some litigation will result.

The direct and personal contact with the insureds, the complex nature of the policies at issue, the limitless number of claims scenarios, combined with the ever-increasing percentage of insureds represented by public adjusters, make this area of insurance claims ripe for lawsuits. When other unique areas of dispute – such as appraisal, matching and replacement cost – are considered, sometimes during catastrophe (CAT) operations, the importance of having legal counsel concentrating his or her practice in property litigation cannot be underestimated.

Our First-Party Property Practice is very familiar with these issues and the state of the law as it pertains to first-party matters and bad faith. Marshall Dennehey's First-Party Property Practice maintains a synergistic relationship with our Insurance Coverage/Bad Faith and Fraud/ Special Investigative Litigation Practices. These relationships allow our attorneys to coordinate their efforts and stay current relative to these overlapping areas of practice.

Our services go beyond representation after a lawsuit is filed and include:

  • Coordinating counsel services;
  • Pre-litigation commercial and residential claims consultation, including such issues as business interruption, extra expense, profit and overhead, “matching” and appraisal;
  • Drafting reservation of rights and coverage position letters;
  • Drafting property coverage opinion letters;
  • Regulatory consultation and responding to insurance department complaints and inquiries;
  • Examinations Under Oath to clarify facts and coverage;
  • Training of management and staff;
  • Selection of vendors;
  • Assistance in developing claims protocols; and
  • Assistance in drafting new and revising existing policy language.

Included in the First-Party Property Practice are attorneys who, prior to law school, worked as property claims representatives. These attorneys bring experience in property damage estimation, contents evaluation and public adjuster representation. They possess a unique perspective that enables them to advise and assist the claims professional both before and after litigation.

Results

Thought Leadership

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.