.

Kimberlin L. Ruiz

Associate

KLRuiz@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Kimberlin L. Ruiz

Kimberlin is a member of the firm's Professional Liability Department and focuses her practice on the defense of attorneys, accountants, insurance producers, real estate professionals, public entities, corporate directors and officers, and financial institutions, among other clients.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Kimberlin was an associate at a New Jersey-based law firm, where her practice included labor and employment, litigation, municipal law and OPRA. Kimberlin also previously worked at a law firm where she gained experience in the area of family law.  Following law school, Kimberlin served as a Judicial Law Clerk to the Honorable James J. Guida, J.S.C. in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, in Bergen County.  

A graduate of Rutgers Law School, Kimberlin received the G.A. Moore Prize at graduation for her distinguished work in employment discrimination law.  While pursuing her juris doctor, Kimberlin worked full-time as a paralegal.  

    • Rutgers Law School (J.D., 2020)
    • Loyola University Maryland (B.A., 2014)
    • New Jersey
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey
    • New Jersey Super Lawyer Rising Star (2026)
      The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
    • Professional Liability Underwriting Society

Thought Leadership

View all

Case Law Alerts

New Jersey Judiciary Implements Trial de Novo Deadline Reminders After Arbitration Awards

July 21, 2026

As there are times where cases against real estate brokers and producers are subject to non-binding arbitration in New Jersey, one thing that maintains of high importance is the strict deadline for the filing of demand for a trial de novo in the instance that a party seeks that the arbitration award be vacated and the matter return to the trial calendar.  In 2026, in the unreported decision of Arora Petroleum 2, LLC v. Avin Petroleum LLC, No. A-1706-24, 2026 WL 291226 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 4, 2026), the Appellate Division commented as to the new steps the judiciary now takes to ensure that a reminder is sent to parties before the deadline for the demand for a trial de novo expires. This Omnibus Rule Amendment Order & Supreme Court Action on Non-Rule Recommendations sets forth that, similar to discovery end date reminders, the judiciary now issues electronic reminders, through eCourts, to all parties seven days before the expiration of the thirty-day deadline imposed by Rule 4:21A-6(b)(1). This newly implemented reminder came after an amendment to Rule 4:21A-6  (which has since been rescinded), that allotted an additional ten days to a party who missed the thirty-day period to file the demand for trial de novo to file a motion to reject an arbitration award and demand a trial de novo as within time upon establishing good cause.  This Omnibus Rule brings to light the importance of filing a timely demand for trial de novo in matters that are subject to arbitration in the Superior Court. The court is now taking an additional step to issue a reminder to parties about the deadline through eCourts, which should not be ignored or taken lightly. 

Defense Digest

The Pay Transparency Act Makes Its Splash this Summer in New Jersey

June 1, 2025

Key Points: June 1, 2025, the Pay Transparency Act takes effect in the state of New Jersey. Under the Act, employers are required to include the salary and/or hourly wage range being considered for a vacant position.  Employers must also disclose in job postings a general description of the benefits and other compensation programs to which the employee would be eligible. Failure to comply can result in monetary fines for each violation. New Jersey has officially joined a number of other states in adopting a pay transparency law, and the time has officially come for the Pay Transparency Act to take effect in New Jersey. As you may recall from last year, on November 18, 2024, Governor Phil Murphy signed the Pay Transparency Act into legislation (Bill S2310/A4151), which largely affects employers both within New Jersey or who do business in New Jersey.  The Act, which officially becomes effective on June 1, 2025, requires employers to include as a part of a posting for a job position, the hourly wage or salary range being considered for the position. Employers will also now be required to include in any job posting a general description of the benefits and other compensation programs for which the employee would be eligible. The Act applies to jobs that are both internal and external, as well as positions available through promotion or transfer opportunities. Employers are required to “make reasonable efforts to announce, post, or otherwise make known opportunities for promotion,” to all current employees in the affected department(s) before a promotion decision is made.  The Act applies to an employer in any form of a business that has ten or more employees for a period of more than 20 calendar weeks per year. Additionally, the Act applies to any businesses that conduct business in New Jersey, employ individuals within New Jersey, or even accept employment applications from individuals within New Jersey. It expands to explicitly include employment agencies and/or other third-party agencies, such as referral agencies, as employers who are required to abide by the transparency laws.  As of June 1, 2025, if a business fails to comply with these transparency requirements, the Act includes penalties for any violations. Such penalties include fines of $300.00 for the first violation and $600.00 per subsequent violation. Under the Act, a particular job opportunity is deemed one violation, regardless of the number of platforms the position may be advertised across or number of individual postings within the post. Any and all fines will be received by the the Commission of Labor and Workforce Development. While the Act requires that salary and hourly wage ranges be disclosed, these ranges should be the baseline for what an employee may receive as compensation in that position. Of course, if the employer decides to offer an applicant higher compensation than what was disclosed on the job posting, they are permitted to do so at the time of hire. There are a few exceptions, which are laid out by the Act, such as how these requirements apply to promotions. The Act specifically defines a promotion as “a change in job title and an increase in compensation.” In circumstances where a promotion for a current employee is awarded based upon performance and/or years of experience, there is no notification requirement to post the position. Additionally, there is an exception, although narrow, that allows an employer to promote an employee on an “emergent basis due to an unforeseen event.” However, at this time, no guidance is provided as to what qualifies as an “emergent basis” or an “unforeseen event,” which leaves room for interpretation.  It is important for employers to recognize that, while the Pay Transparency Act does not create a private cause of action for any employee or individuals who may apply for a position, there is still the possibility an individual may bring a cause of action under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) if they report their employer’s failure to comply with Act and afterwards feel they have been a victim of retaliation by the employer for their reporting.  Employers should be mindful of this law in New Jersey, as well as other states that may have adopted similar legislation or already have similar legislation in effect. Pay transparency is now the rule in New Jersey.  *Kimberlin is a member of our Professional Liability Department and works in our Roseland, NJ office.   Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 2, June 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

Ohio Supreme Court Holds That a Binding Appraisal Award May Not Be Set Aside Absent Specific Evidence of Manifest Mistake or Fraud

On July 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a rare opinion on the binding effect of an appraisal award in a property insurance policy.  The Court in One Church held: A binding appraisal award will not be set aside unless an error is so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—To plead a claim of mistake with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B), facts alleged in a complaint must constitute the elements of mistake—Allegation that additional, hidden damage was discovered after appraisal award failed to state a claim of mistake that could justify setting aside binding appraisal.  The case arose out of a claim brought by One Church against its insurer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company for roof damage from a storm. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the parties agreed to submit the matter to appraisal. The two appraisers inspected the building, and both appraisers agreed that the damages were $313,271.98. The insurer paid the agreed appraised amount.  Thereafter, the insured submitted a claim for an additional $206,663.09 in damages. The insured argued that these additional damages were not discovered until after the repairs began, and that they should be permitted to submit an additional claim, even though there had already been a binding appraisal of damages. The insurer refused to pay the additional damages, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  In the trial court, the insurer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the binding appraisal award barred any further claims. The insured took the position that additional hidden damages could not be discovered until after the repairs began, and therefore there was a mutual mistake. The trial court dismissed the case on the insurer’s motion, because there was no “evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake”. The Court of Appeals agreed that appraisal awards are generally binding, but noted that an appraisal award can be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the insured had pled mistake with sufficient particularity. The insurer appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court decision dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court found that since the insured had already demanded appraisal, and the appraisal award was binding, “something more than error of judgement, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake” must be pled with particularity, and proven for the insured to override the appraisal award. Since the complaint did not allege fraud or manifest mistake with sufficient particularity, something more than a mere error of judgment, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim.  The complaint in this case did not challenge the appraisal award. It pled that additional damages were discovered that were not apparent when the appraisal was done. It did not specify “who discovered the damages, how they were discovered, where they were found, why they were previously hidden, or why they rise to the level of a manifest mistake that the “appraiser would have corrected...had it been called to his attention”. Id at ¶22 citing Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases deciding the effect of appraisal awards are unusual. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in One Church relies primarily on 19th century case law for its conclusion. This emphasizes the fact that there is minimal case law deciding the effect of binding appraisal clauses in property insurance policies, and makes this case all the more significant. A lengthy dissent was written by Justice Fisher, who would have affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding the case for a decision on the merits. Of course, the decision works both ways, and an insurer dissatisfied with a binding appraisal award will likewise be without further recourse absent evidence of corruption, fraud, misfeasance, or manifest mistake, which must be pled with particularity. To constitute manifest mistake, “the mistake must be of such character that the arbitrator or appraiser would have corrected it had it been called to his attention.”  Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970).  The majority opinion does not specifically identify what would have been sufficient to plead mistake with particularity, or if the insured could have amended the complaint to overcome the deficiencies. The dissent argues that this was not really a case alleging mistake, but rather a question of contract interpretation. The insured did not challenge the appraisal, but argued that the hidden damage was not part of the appraisal, and the appraisal only covered the known damages.  However, this argument did not carry the day with the majority.  *Thomas F. Glassman, a shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s Cincinnati office, filed a brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, in support of the insurer’s position.

Thought Leadership

The Best Defense is Already in the File: Documentation in Civil Rights Litigation

Thought Leadership

State of Insurance: Q2 Notes From Pennsylvania

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney