New Jersey Court Holds Claims-Made Insurance Policy Without Retroactive Coverage Is Valid and Enforceable

Share Article

In a precedent-setting case, a New Jersey court found that claims-made insurance policies that did not include retroactive coverage could be valid and enforceable. An insurance company had offered a home inspector retroactive coverage, but the inspector had declined it when he purchased the insurance policy. The inspector later sued the insurance company, claiming that a liability policy without retroactive coverage was illegal and violated New Jersey public policy. Representing the insurance company, TELS attorneys demonstrated that the insurance company provided many written opportunities, in easy-to-understand language, for the inspector to purchase the retroactive coverage; however, each time the inspector had declined the coverage. Given the facts of the case, The Superior Court of New Jersey in Essex County ruled that the policy did not violate New Jersey public policy and was perfectly legal.

TRAUB EGLIN LIEBERMAN STRAUS LLP (TELS) is pleased to report that, in a recent case argued by the firm before the Superior Court of New Jersey in Essex County, the firm won a precedent-setting decision regarding the enforceability of claims-made policies in New Jersey.

An inspection company was sued for negligence arising from a home inspection performed in 1999. The inspection company sought coverage under its liability policy, but was denied coverage because the retroactive date of the policy was the same date that the policy began (meaning there was no retroactive coverage for prior acts).

After being denied coverage, the inspection company subsequently filed suit against the insurance company, claiming that the lack of a retroactive "lookback" period was illegal and violated New Jersey's public policy.

TELS attorneys Jonathan Reed and Aileen Droughton represented the insurer in the case, arguing that the insured (the inspection company) had been offered the choice of an extended "lookback" period in plain, easy-to-read language. However, the inspection company refused the extended coverage for economic reasons. All of the applications and renewal forms made clear reference to the retroactive date. And they also pointed to the home inspector's written request that said, in effect, that the inspector did not wish to pay an additional premium for coverage for acts occurring before the beginning of the policy.

In a clear victory for companies issuing claims-made policies, the Court agreed with TELS' arguments, ruling that the insurance company's New Jersey Notice of Election of Retroactive Coverage Form was clear and "straightforward." The Court opined that, when faced with a choice between the two policies, the insured knowingly opted not to purchase retroactive coverage prior to the date of inception.

The case involved was Caine, et al. v. Dorval, et al. and R.K.M. Inspection Services, Inc. v. Evanston Insurance Company, et al. (New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Essex County, docket number ESX-L-9485-02)

TELS congratulates Mr. Reed and Ms. Droughton for their work on this precedent-setting case. For more information on Mr. Reed and his C.V., please visit:

And to learn more about Ms. Droughton, please review her C.V. online at:


TRAUB EGLIN LIEBERMAN STRAUS LLP (TELS) has achieved a national reputation for excellence in legal representation. Our philosophy is to provide quality legal representation in an expeditious and efficient manner. Our emphasis on client service, as well as our reputation in the legal community, has served our clients and the firm well. TELS has been recognized by many, including Martindale-Hubbell, for outstanding legal ability and ethical standards. For more information, visit us online at

# # #

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Scott Carr
Email >