.

Legal Updates for Insurance Agents & Brokers

An Examination of the Special Relationship Theory of Liability in New Jersey

Legal Update for Insurance Agents & Brokers – February 2026

February 20, 2026

by Zipporah E. Ridley

RQ Floors Corp. v. Liberty Ins. Assocs., Inc., highlights the special relationship theory of liability. In this case, the plaintiff appealed an order granting a summary judgment dismissal on claims of negligence, breach of duty, and breach of a fiduciary relationship against insurance producers.

The plaintiff argued that the insurance broker created a special relationship because he inspected the premises and equipment throughout several years, and was aware of a business expansion. It was alleged that the broker acted as a risk manager because he made recommendations on the coverage type and amount, which caused the plaintiff to rely on his expertise. Therefore, the plaintiff asserted that the broker was at fault because he failed to obtain the appropriate coverage for the business and code upgrades.

RQ Floors Corp., upholds the standard that the special relationship theory of liability is not based on professional training or standards, but on the the agent’s assumed duties and the duties that are normally associated with agent-insured relationship. This can be assumed through conduct that causes the insured to rely to his detriment.

Typically, insurance brokerage claims require the need for expert testimony, however, in order to prove this theory of liability, the court indicated focus is on the parties’ conduct, rather than the professional standard of care. The court noted that expert testimony is not required to establish a professional standard of care in the context of a special relationship, under the circumstances. Rather, courts consider parties’ arrangements, custom, course of dealing, the length of their relationship, and relative expertise to determine if there are greater responsibilities taken on by the producer.

In this case, the court determined that the defendant’s actions were well within the scope of his duties, emphasizing that an insurance broker should understand the different types of policies, their terms, and the available coverage that is offered. The court ultimately affirmed the summary judgment stating that the plaintiffs failed to establish a special relationship.


Legal Update for Insurance Agents & Brokers- February 2026, 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2026 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact MEDeSatnick@mdwcg.com.

 

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.