Skip to Content

New Jersey Federal Court: Policyholders Must Plead Specific Policy Provisions to Maintain Suits

In Law Office of Drew J. Bauman v. Hanover Insurance Co., the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey affirmed that policyholders must allege, under New Jersey law, the specific provisions of the insurance policy in order to state a claim for relief under the insurance contract. In doing so, the court bolstered the growing national judicial trend of restricting policyholder coverage litigation to those involving specific allegations of a carrier’s purported breach of contract, not lawsuits based on general policyholder grievances regarding a particular claim.

This case arose in 2019 following Bauman’s legal representation of James Woerner in a real estate transaction, which led to Woerner’s suit for legal malpractice. Bauman requested coverage for the suit under his professional liability insurance policy with Hanover. After Hanover declined multiple requests, Bauman sued Hanover for breach of contract and declaratory judgment.

Hanover moved to dismiss Bauman’s complaint, arguing, among other things, that Bauman’s complaint “failed to allege any facts concerning the terms of the Policy, or how the Policy was breached” and “failed to allege what, if any, damages” resulted from the breach. The court agreed and dismissed Bauman’s complaint.

In support of its ruling, the court reasoned that, while Bauman’s complaint referred to the insurance policy, the policyholder did not attach the policy to the complaint nor did the policyholder quote from, or even cite, the specific policy provisions. The court’s decision is consistent with the approach of other states, like Florida, that refuse generalized complaints against insurance carriers that do not specifically allege the portions of insurance contracts that have allegedly been breached. In doing so, courts in these states are clarifying that insurance contracts should be treated the same as any other contract once the contract becomes the subject of a court proceeding.

Related Industries
Property & Casualty Insurance
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.