Sean is an associate in the firm's Casualty Department where he handles all areas of general liability, premises liability, automobile liability, amusement liability, and civil rights litigation.
Prior to coming to the firm, Sean was an attorney at a local boutique civil rights firm. In this position, Sean handled matters for plaintiff employees and defendant employers alike in subject matters ranging from disability, race, age, and gender discrimination, sexual harassment, cannabis litigation, and whistleblower actions.
Sean received his juris doctor in 2020 from Rutgers Law School after having graduated from Ohio State University in 2017. Subsequent to graduating law school, Sean was a law clerk at the Bergen County Superior Court, Law Division, for the Honorable Avis Bishop-Thompson, now of the Appellate Division.
Sean is admitted to practice in both the State and District of New Jersey.
Results
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Real Estate E&O Liability
Appellate Division Provides Clear Guidance for Sellers, Brokers and Inspectors in Seller Disclosure Litigation
February 5, 2026
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed summary judgment for a home seller, her brokerage and agent, and a home inspector. The court found that the buyer failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact regarding alleged misrepresentations about the property’s sewer connection or the existence of a buried septic tank. Although the opinion is unreported, the court grounded its analysis in published New Jersey authority that continues to define the obligations of real estate professionals and home inspectors in nondisclosure cases. In Park v. Clemmons, A-1440-23, the buyer purchased a home in 2014. The Seller’s Property Condition Disclosure Statement and the home inspection report each stated that the home appeared to be connected to the municipal sewer system. All parties denied knowledge of a septic tank. Six years later, the buyer discovered an abandoned underground tank during renovation and sued for violations of the Consumer Fraud Act, common law fraud and breach of contract. Since the seller was a nonprofessional, the court applied the long standing principles from Byrne v. Weichert Realtors, 290 N. J. Super. 126 (App. Div. 1996), and Zaman v. Felton, 219 N. J. 199 (2014), which limit the Consumer Fraud Act liability to commercial sellers. The court, therefore, evaluated only the common law fraud and contract claims and found no evidence of falsity or knowledge, and no basis to infer reckless disregard for the truth. The central issue was whether the property lacked a municipal sewer connection and whether any defendant knew or should have known of the buried tank. The record established a 1974 municipal approval for sewer connection, tax bills that included sewer charges and the buyer’s own 2020 permit application to replace, rather than install, the sewer line. The court held that the buyer offered no evidence capable of rebutting these objective records. The mere existence of an abandoned tank did not demonstrate that the municipal connection was absent. The buyer also failed to retain an expert after the trial court found one was necessary to prove any defect, and this omission was fatal to his misrepresentation theories. In addition, the agreement of sale contained standard as-is language, a non-survival clause for seller representations and a clear inspection right—all of which defeated the buyer’s contract-based claims. The court, likewise, affirmed summary judgment for the home inspector. The inspection contract limited the inspection to visible and accessible conditions, and the buyer acknowledged that no visible indicators of a septic system were present. The court also applied the four-year statute of limitations for inspection claims, rendering the buyer’s suit untimely by two years. Although unreported, Park reflects well settled principles in New Jersey real estate law. A seller, broker or agent is not responsible simply because a latent condition surfaces years after closing. Courts continue to heavily rely on municipal records, transactional documents and other objective information when assessing the accuracy of a disclosure. Fraud claims still require real proof that a statement was false when made. Home inspection agreements that define the scope of the work remain enforceable, and claims against inspectors must be brought within the statutory period. In the end, the court’s reliance on established, published precedent reinforces the defenses that sellers, brokers, agents and inspection professionals have traditionally relied upon in these types of cases. Legal Update for Real Estate E&O – 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
Legal Updates for Insurance Agents & Brokers
NJ Appellate Division Clarifies Consumer Fraud Act Exception for Insurance Producers, Upholds Plemmons
June 27, 2025
On June 24, 2025, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued an unpublished opinion in Lowe v. Audet, A-4093-23, holding that insurance producers remain exempt from liability under the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) when performing services within the scope of their professional licensure. The decision resolved a lingering question as to whether Shaw v. Shand, which narrowed the scope of the CFA’s learned professional exception and held that licensed home inspectors were not exempt, had implicitly overruled or undermined Plemmons v. Blue Chip Insurance Services, a long-standing case holding that insurance producers are not subject to CFA liability due to their regulated, semi-professional status. Lowe arose from a dispute involving a neurosurgeon who alleged that his longtime insurance brokers failed to properly advise him about the scope of coverage under various disability insurance policies. After benefits were denied, the plaintiff filed suit, asserting, among other things, claims for professional negligence and a violation of the CFA. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the CFA claim, relying on Plemmons, which held that insurance brokers, as semi-professionals subject to rigorous statutory and regulatory oversight, are not subject to CFA liability for services rendered in their licensed role. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that Shaw v. Shand rejected the premise that semi-professionals could qualify for CFA immunity and, thereby, narrowed the exemption to only those historically recognized as learned professionals, such as doctors and lawyers. The Appellate Division disagreed, reaffirming Plemmons and holding that Shaw did not overrule it. The panel emphasized that Shaw involved home inspectors, not insurance producers, and that its discussion of the learned professional exception was not intended to apply beyond the context of that case. The court found no basis to depart from the established principle that insurance producers are exempt from CFA claims arising out of their professional services, particularly where they are governed by a detailed regulatory scheme. The panel also noted that the Legislature has not acted to modify or abrogate Plemmons since it was decided in 2006. That continued legislative silence, the court reasoned, reinforces the conclusion that insurance producers remain outside the scope of the CFA when acting in their licensed capacity. Although the opinion is currently unpublished, it may be approved for publication in the future and is likely to carry significant persuasive weight in trial courts throughout the state. It provides important clarification for insurers, brokers and litigants by confirming that the CFA does not apply to the core functions performed by licensed insurance professionals. Impact This decision offers welcome clarity to insurance professionals and defense counsel, particularly in light of inconsistent trial-level interpretations following Shaw. By reaffirming Plemmons, the New Jersey Appellate Division confirmed that insurance producers are not subject to CFA liability when performing licensed services, even in the face of arguments that Shaw narrowed the scope of the professional exemption. Lowe reinforces the separation between consumer fraud claims and professional malpractice, and it provides a strong basis for motions to dismiss CFA claims currently pending against brokers. While unpublished for now, Lowe is poised to become a key authority in resolving the applicability of the CFA in professional services litigation. Legal Update for Insurance Agents & Brokers- June 27, 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. 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 © 2025 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 tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.
