On July 15, 2026, a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court held in Lowe v. Audet that insurance brokers, producers, and agents are not shielded from the Consumer Fraud Act by the “learned professional” exception. Writing for the Court, Justice Fasciale rejected the semi-professional safe harbor that lower courts had recognized for two decades and exposed an entire industry to the Act’s treble-damage and fee-shifting remedies. For anyone defending producer errors-and-omissions claims in New Jersey, the decision changes the exposure calculus on day one of the file.
Background
Dr. James Lowe, a neurosurgeon, purchased disability coverage through brokers Bernard Audet and Richard Laver of Creative Financial Group. He alleged the brokers assured him of maximum benefits without disclosing that his unrelated business interests could reduce what the policy would pay. When a vision condition ended his ability to perform surgery and he sought full benefits, he received only partial payment. He sued, and his complaint included a Consumer Fraud Act count alongside professional negligence. The brokers moved to dismiss the CFA claim, invoking the learned professional exception and the line of Appellate Division authority that had treated producers as exempt semi-professionals.
The Decision
The Court read the learned professional exception narrowly. The exception exists for a small set of professions, such as law and medicine, that were barred from advertising to consumers when the Consumer Fraud Act was enacted in 1960 and that are subject to comprehensive regulation that would collide with the Act’s consumer-protection machinery. Insurance producers do not fit that mold. They were permitted to advertise, and the licensing path is comparatively modest, requiring a short course rather than the years of training and the advertising prohibitions that defined the historic professions. On that reasoning the Court disapproved the Appellate Division’s Plemmons decision, which had carved out a semi-professional exemption, and held that producers answer to the CFA like other sellers of goods and services.
What It Means for New Jersey Cases
This is a significant expansion of Consumer Fraud Act exposure for the insurance industry. Brokers, producers, and agents now face potential treble damages and mandatory fee-shifting on top of ordinary negligence exposure, which changes both reserves and settlement posture in producer liability files. Any defense that rested on Plemmons is gone, so counsel should assess CFA exposure in every broker and producer E&O matter going forward. The reasoning also invites a harder look at whether other service providers who had claimed semi-professional status can still rely on the exception.
How We Put It to Work
We evaluate the Consumer Fraud Act count at the pleading stage of every producer file and press the elements the statute still requires. A CFA claim demands an unconscionable commercial practice, not mere professional negligence, together with an ascertainable loss caused by the conduct, and those elements remain contestable even after Lowe. We scrutinize whether the alleged conduct is an affirmative misrepresentation or omission that crosses the line into unlawful practice, and we reassess reserves and negotiating strategy in light of the treble-damage and fee exposure the decision now puts on the table.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Sanchez Maselli Trial Attorneys.