Chris actively defends matters for a variety of clients from individuals to small businesspeople to medium sized and large insurance companies throughout New Jersey and New York. His practice includes matters involving premises liability, product liability, amusements, sports and recreation, construction accidents, automobile, condominium/community association law and dram shop/liquor liability. He also represents home inspectors and real estate agents involved in mold and other environmental claims. Chris defends professional malpractice matters brought against lawyers, real estate professionals, insurance agents and brokers, appraisers, architects and engineers. He has also defended a wide range of employment matters including the defense of gender and race claims.
Christopher has conducted over a dozen jury trials in state and federal venues in both New Jersey and New York, including most recently in Union and Morris counties in New Jersey. At trial he has litigated matters that range from complicated federally based legal malpractice claims to state court casualty cases.
In his career, Chris has defended product liability lawsuits brought against one of the nation's largest crane manufactures and freezer manufacturers. His representation extends to some the nation's largest insurance companies as well as a large brokerage firm.
Chris received his juris doctor from Widener University School of Law and a Bachelor of Science from the University of Pittsburgh. He is admitted to practice in New Jersey and New York.
Honors & Awards
•Litigation Management Institute, Graduate 2019 (CLMP)
•Certified Claims Professional (CCP), Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM)
Classes/Seminars Taught
•Casualty Claims Investigation, CLM Claims College School of Casualty Claims - Level 1, September 2025
•Preparing A Claim for Trial, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, April 2025
•Preparing A Claim for Trial, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, February 4, 2025
•Casualty Claims Investigation, CLM Claims College School of Casualty Claims - Level 1, September 2024
•The Seven-Ten Split Mock Trial: Navigating Agent Errors & Omissions, The Annual Professional Insurance Agents (PIA) Conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey, June 2, 2024
•Emerging Claims Against Home Inspectors, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, March 9, 2022
•Casualty Claims Investigation, CLM Claims College School of Casualty Claims - Level 1, Virtual, 2021
•Civil Litigation State of Affairs - The Impact of COVID-19 in Pennsylvania and New Jersey & What’s Next, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, May 2021
•Casualty Claims Evaluation, CLM Claims College School of Casualty Claims - Level 1, Virtual, 2020
•Anatomy of a Real Estate Transaction: How Actions of Participants Give Rise to Claims, Client Presentation, July, 2019
•Defending Real Estate Agents, Title Agents and Home Inspectors, PLDF Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, October, 2018
•Expert Witnesses - Using New Jersey Court Rules To Your Advantage, National Business Institute, Newark, NJ, November 2015
•Top Ten Ways to Keep Your PL Claims Professional Happy , PLDF Annual Conference and CLE/CEU Presentation, Washington, DC, September, 2014
•Ethical Claim Negotiations, CEU Institute, Parsippany, NJ, January 2014
•Primer on Claims and Risk Management Issues for Real Estate Agents and Home Inspectors, PLDF Annual Conference and CLE/CEU Presentation, Chicago, IL, October 2013
•Liabilities and Obligations for Real Estate Professionals, Lorman Education Services, September 2012
Publications
•'Guide To Expert Testimony in Malpractice Cases Against Real Estate Professionals,' New Jersey Law Journal, October 21, 2019
•'Playing Outside: NJ Landowners' Liability Act Protects Personal Injury Defendants,' New Jersey Law Journal, September 18, 2014
Results
Defense Verdict Returned After Short Jury Deliberation in High-Exposure New Jersey Trucking Case
Christopher Block and Paul Lanza (both of Roseland) successfully obtained a defense verdict in a trucking accident in New Jersey. The plaintiff claimed that our client merged into her lane at the George Washington Bridge toll plaza causing her to sustain neck and back injuries for which she underwent two spinal surgeries. Our client testified that both of their lanes ended and, because they were required to merge, he had the right-of-way since the front of his truck was ahead of the front of her vehicle. Our accident reconstruction expert confirmed that our driver had the right-of-way and opined that plaintiff was the sole cause of the accident. We also disputed the causation of plaintiff’s alleged injuries based on the very limited property damage to her vehicle, as well as the fact that she had prior, similar injuries. After a little more than an hour of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict finding that our driver was not negligent. The trial team was assisted by associate attorney Haleigh Catalano and paralegal Kelly Dermody who provided critical support with motions in limine and trial management.
Summary Judgment Secured in New Jersey Water Damage Case
We achieved summary judgment for our client, a commercial plumber, in the Cape May County Superior Court. The plaintiff alleged water leakage in the parking garage of a beach resort hotel resulted from defective plumbing work by the defendant. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that improper connections between the plumber’s pipes and the drainage system caused the leaks. The defense motion for summary judgment demonstrated that the defendant’s scope of work was limited to garage plumbing, performed according to specifications and unrelated to the waterproofing membrane or drainage system design flaws identified as the cause of the leaks. The court granted summary judgment, holding that the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff beyond the limited scope of their work and dismissed all claims. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Real Estate E&O Liability
Protecting Real Estate Professionals with Renewed Strength and Expanded Reach
November 1, 2025
We are excited to announce the reinvigoration of our Real Estate Professional Liability defense team, servicing clients in eight states including Delaware, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.Our Real Estate E&O Liability Practice Group represents real estate professionals and related service providers in high-stakes civil litigation across a wide range of claims. We have extensive experience defending real estate brokers, agents, and REALTORS against malpractice and breach of duty allegations stemming from residential and commercial transactions, as well as those who play critical roles in facilitating these transactions, including title agents, abstractors, surveyors, mortgage brokers, appraisers, home inspectors and title insurance companies. Our attorneys understand the complexities of real estate law and the nuances of professional standards in each of the jurisdictions in which we practice, allowing us to craft targeted defenses that protect our clients’ reputations and livelihoods. We are creative, proactive and strategic, working closely with our clients and their insurers to craft a formidable defense, often helping to resolve matters through negotiation or early motion practice pre-suit. When litigation is unavoidable, we bring deep courtroom experience and an unwavering commitment to defending our clients through trial and appeal, if necessary.We know that for professionals involved in real estate, litigation can be both financially and professionally disruptive. That’s why we prioritize efficient case management, cost-effective strategies and clear communication throughout the life of a case. Our goal is always to protect our clients’ interests while minimizing the impact on their business operations and professional standing.With a team that blends deep legal knowledge and real-world insight into the real estate industry, we are trusted counsel to professionals facing complex and often emotionally-charged disputes. Whether the matter involves a multimillion-dollar commercial deal or a single-family home transaction, our attorneys bring the same level of dedication and attention to detail. We are proud to be a reliable defense partner for real estate professionals and the businesses that support them. When your work is under scrutiny, you need a legal team that understands the stakes-and how to win. Legal Update for Real Estate E&O - November 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.
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.ImpactThis 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.
