Attorney waits for answer from insurance company
BY KATHY BARATTA Staff Writer
The next chapter in a lawsuit involving Manalapan and attorney Stuart Moskovitz may play out in a courtroom in Freehold on Nov. 2.

On that date Moskovitz may hear whether a judge will allow him the extension of time he needs to clear up questions about his malpractice insurance coverage.

In September, state Superior Court Judge Terence P. Flynn denied Moskovitz's motion to dismiss the lawsuit that was filed against him by the Manalapan Township Committee. Flynn instructed Moskovitz to inform his malpractice insurance carrier there was an open and ongoing litigation against him related to matters Moskovitz had handled as Manalapan's municipal attorney in 2005.

According to a motion Moskovitz filed with the court, after notifying his insurance carrier, Hudson Insurance, New York, of the ongoing litigation and requesting that it represent him in the matter the company decided to decline him coverage.

Moskovitz has asked the company to reconsider its decision. He said he has had his business insurance with Hudson Insurance since 2003.

According to Moskovitz, the insurance company's adjustor cited three reasons the company was declining him coverage now, referring to the township's indemnification ordinance which Flynn had ruled did not indemnify Moskovitz.

Moskovitz said the firm is also declining him coverage because it is contending that its policy coverage does not cover government officials.

When asked, Moskovitz conceded that his insurance company was also denying him coverage because he opened the litigation before the court while presenting himself to the court as the attorney of record in the matter.

When asked why he had not informed Hudson Insurance of the ongoing litigation, choosing instead to pursue the matter himself, Moskovitz said, "The reason I didn't contact them (Hudson Insurance) was because I had every reason to believe the case would be dismissed. I didn't want to file a claim, have them expend resources and then in turn have my rates go up."

According to his motion, Moskovitz is awaiting a final decision in the matter from the carrier as to whether it will change its decision and reinstate his malpractice coverage.

However, Moskovitz is prohibited by Hudson Insurance from proceeding with discovery or in any aspect of the matter of the township's litigation against him until the insurance company has rendered a final decision regarding whether his insurance coverage will be reinstated.

Given the restrictions being imposed by the insurance carrier, Moskovitz is petitioning the judge to allow him an extension of time in the matter until Dec. 1.

Moskovitz is also going to be asking Flynn to rule on an assertion from him that David Weeks, the special attorney representing Manalapan in the litigation, is in a position of conflict since there may be cases in which Weeks or his law firm's partners may have represented Hudson Insurance.

Weeks said that off the top of his head he could not think of any Hudson Insurance cases he may have been involved with. However, he said it was a moot point since there would be no conflict even if his firm had done work for Hudson Insurance.

"Even if we had done work with Hudson it would not be a conflict. There is no conflict in suing someone that is insured by Hudson or any insurance carrier you do work for," he said.

Moskovitz is asking Flynn to " … determine if there is any relationship between plaintiff 's attorney and either my insurance company, the adjustor used by them or any affiliated entity."

The judge is expected to give a ruling Nov. 2 as to whether he will grant Moskovitz the extension of time he has requested as well as ruling whether Weeks has a conflict in the matter.

In a lawsuit filed in June, Manalapan officials allege that Moskovitz breached his responsibility to the township in 2005 at the time he was serving as the municipal attorney when he drew up a contract of sale for the township's purchase of two single-family homes on Route 522 in front of the Manalapan Recreation Center.

A home at 95 Freehold Road (Route 522) was purchased for $432,000 and a home at 93 Freehold Road was purchased for $465,500. The township took possession of the properties on June 8, 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that Moskovitz prepared a contract of sale that left the township unprotected and therefore unable to seek remuneration for the expense of removing an underground oil tank, soil remediation costs incurred by cleaning up heating oil contamination, and the cost of cleaning up farm field pesticide contamination that was also discovered on the purchased properties.

The township is seeking damages and costs from Moskovitz.

Moskovitz has said he believes the contract of sale he prepared afforded Manalapan all the protection the township needed in connection with the purchase of the two homes.