SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
New Jersey Significant Case Summaries
James G. Lowe, M.D. v. Bernard Audet, et al.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Docket No. A-12-25, ___ N.J. ____ (2026)
Decided: July 15, 2026
Insurance brokers, producers, and agents are not exempt from the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) under the learned professionals exception as semi-professionals or otherwise.
Background
Plaintiff James Lowe, M.D. filed a complaint against the Defendants alleging, among other counts, that the Defendants violated the Consumer Fraud Act when they marketed, sold, produced, and procured insurance policies to and for the plaintiff and his medical practice that covered loss related to disability. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants advised him that he would receive maximum benefits in the event that he become disabled and never advised him that his other business interests could affect a benefits claim. The trial court dismissed the CFA count, finding that the Defendants were semi-professionals exempt from the CFA under the “learned professionals” exception. The Appellate Division affirmed.
Holding
Plaintiff James Lowe M.D. appealed the dismissal of the CFA count. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. In doing so, the Court addressed conflicting appellate decisions in Plemmons v. Blue Chip Insurance Services, Inc., 387 N.J. Super. 551 (App. Div. 2006) and Shaw v. Shand, 460 N.J. Super. 592 (App. Div. 2019). The Court acknowledges that several judicially created exemptions to the CFA have been created for “learned professionals”, but refuses to address that issue here. Rather, the Court held that the “semi-professional” exception has no support in the CFA, and that insurance brokers do not fall under either the “learned professional” or “semi-professional” exception, no matter the methodology used to define those terms. As a result, the CFA applies to insurance brokers, producers, and agents; and, the judgment of the Appellate Division was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Questions about this case can be directed to Mark Sander at (856) 334-0415 ext. 8915 or msander@tthlaw.com.
Casandra Gigi Smith v. Newark Community Health Centers, Inc.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Docket No. A-67-24, ___ N.J. ____ (2026)
Decided: June 10, 2026
As a matter of law, Newark Community Health Centers, Inc. (NCHC) is an entity “organized exclusively for hospital purposes,” under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-8 entitled only to a $250,000.00 cap on damages rather than an entity “organized exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes,” under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a) entitled to immunity from certain negligence claims.
Background
Plaintiff Casandra Gigi Smith brought forth a negligence claim against Defendant NCHC after she slipped and fell while exiting the Defendant’s examination room. The trial court granted summary judgment to NCHC holding there was no genuine issue of material fact that NCHC was “organized exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes,” and was therefore entitled to immunity under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a). The Appellate Division affirmed.
Holding
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification. The Court held that NCHC is not entitled to charitable immunity under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a); rather, NCHC is organized exclusively for hospital purposes under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-8 and is entitled to a $250,000.00 cap on damages. The Court addressed the instructive case Kuchera v. Jersey Shore Family Health Center, 221 N.J. 239 (2015). Kuchera explains that “the modern hospital is now a place where members of the community seek not only emergency services but also preventative services, therapy, educational programs, and counseling.” Id. The Court acknowledged that NCHC does provide some educational programs with respect to its operation, but the Court looks to the “dominant motive” to determine NCHC’s purpose. The Court found NCHC’s dominant motive to provide hospital services. The Court further found that NCHC only receives 0.3% of its income from charitable sources. Given that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the Court held that NCHC cannot enjoy immunity under N.J.SA 2A:53A-7(a) and instead must enjoy the entitlement of a $250,000.00 damages cap on any relevant action brought against it.
Questions about this case can be directed to Mark Sander at (856) 334-0415 ext. 8915 or msander@tthlaw.com.