Article ID: 47b92ed3f8e811fb821298b543e16fac775b2848807a26ed0d3b6c53512337c5
Source ID: secondary:businessinsurance.com
Published At: -
Extraction Method: bs4_heuristic
Body Text
Court revives coverage dispute, sanctions attorney over AI-cited cases - Business Insurance Skip to content Register for free Search Search Log In Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Court revives coverage dispute, sanctions attorney over AI-cited cases by Louise Esola Claims Disputes , Workers Comp Coverage , Workplace Safety Mar 27, 2026 A New Jersey appellate court on Friday reinstated a workers compensation insurer’s coverage dispute after finding a lower court improperly dismissed the case with prejudice, while also sanctioning the plaintiff’s attorney for citing nonexistent case law generated by artificial intelligence. In Amtrust North America, etc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. , the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division said AmTrust North America could proceed with its declaratory judgment action, but only after correcting a key procedural error. The dispute stems from benefits paid to an injured worker, Justin McGinness, who was hurt in a motor vehicle accident while working. AmTrust, the employer’s workers compensation insurer, paid more than $75,000 in benefits and sought reimbursement beyond a $15,000 third-party recovery through underinsured motorist coverage it alleged was issued by the defendants. A trial court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding the insurer sued the wrong parties and lacked a viable subrogation claim. The appellate panel agreed the complaint was deficient because the proper insurer — Ohio Security Insurance — was not named, but said the dismissal should have been without prejudice to allow amendment. The panel declined to reach the substantive coverage and subrogation issues, citing the pleading defects and absence of the relevant policy in the record. Separately, the court imposed a $1,000 sanction on plaintiff’s counsel for citing four nonexistent cases in briefing, calling them “hallmarks” of generative AI and a violation of professional conduct rules requiring candor to the tribunal. “We note plaintiff’s attorney has cited four non-existent cases in his merits brief. When he was made aware of this issue by defendants in their opposition brief, plaintiff’s attorney failed to take any responsibility for his presumed misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) or correct the brief. Counsel did not revise the filed brief or advise the court of the hallucinated case law. Both opposing counsel and this court expended wasted time to research the nonexistent cases,” the ruling states. The court affirmed the dismissal in part, remanded for entry of a dismissal without prejudice and ordered the sanction paid personally by counsel. Related News Texas appeals court upholds exclusive remedy defense in contractor injury case March 27, 2026 Vermont governor signs captive bill March 27, 2026 Ping An’s profit jumps 10% to $19.4 billion March 27, 2026 China COSCO resumes Middle East routes March 27, 2026 Allianz Jio Re launches in India, names CEO March 27, 2026 Helium shortage disrupts global tech supply chains March 27, 2026 China Taiping’s profit surges March 27, 2026 Gulf event organizers hit by cancellations, limited insurance March 27, 2026 TRM acquires Rokstone Mauritius March 27, 2026 Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in Business Insurance is a singular, authoritative news and information source for executives focused upon risk management, risk transfer and risk financing. Never miss important news: Become a Business Insurance Online subscriber today Subscribe Now Information About Us Contact Advertise Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Copyright 2026. BUSINESS INSURANCE HOLDINGS Member, Beacon International Group, Ltd.
Metadata (JSON)
{
"score": 13.683333333333334
}