ESTATE OF BARRY GIMELSTOB VS. HOLMDEL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. (L-1863-15, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3341-18T3
ESTATE OF BARRY GIMELSTOB
and FBR FINANCIAL CORP.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants/
Cross-Respondents,
v.
HOLMDEL FINANCIAL
SERVICES INC., CHRISTOPHER
W. NALBANDIAN, MICHAEL
J. FRENVILLE, and RED ROCK
INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendants-Respondents/
Cross-Appellants,
and
LIFEMARK PARTNERS, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________
Argued December 14, 2020 - Decided January 4, 2021
Before Judges Fasciale and Mayer
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-1863-15.
Charles X. Gormally argued the cause for
appellants/cross-respondents (Brach Eichler LLC,
attorneys; Charles X. Gormally and Stuart J. Polkowitz,
of counsel and on the brief; Edward A. Velky, on the
briefs).
Sean F. Byrnes argued the cause for respondents/cross-
appellants (Byrnes, O'Hern & Heugle, LLC, attorneys;
Sean F. Byrnes and Tyler A. Diekhaus, on the briefs).
PER CURIAM
This case involves a commission dispute between life insurance
producers. The Estate of Barry Gimelstob (Gimelstob) and FBR Financial Corp.
(FBR) (collectively plaintiffs) appeal from a February 22, 2019 judgment
entered after a bench trial, which awarded money damages in plaintiffs' favor
against defendants Holmdel Financial Services, Inc. (Holmdel) and Red Rock
Insurance Associates, LLC (Red Rock), but dismissed plaintiffs' claims against
defendants Christopher W. Nalbandian (Nalbandian) and Michael J. Frenville
(Frenville) (the individual defendants). Plaintiffs maintain the individual
defendants are personally liable. Defendants cross-appeal from the same
judgment and contend the evidence did not support an award of damages to
plaintiffs on the life insurance policy purchased by S.P.; and the trial judge erred
by not granting defendants damages, or offsetting plaintiffs' damage award, or
A-3341-18T3
2
awarding a recoupment, to account for Gimelstob's having purportedly breached
the contract by engaging in rebating and by failing to cooperate in the purchase
of three insurance policies on his life.
We affirm the appeal and cross-appeal.
I.
Gimelstob was licensed by the State of New Jersey to sell insurance. He
began working in the life insurance industry in 1971, opened his first agency in
the 1970s or early 1980s, and later founded additional agencies, including FBR.
Gimelstob served as a general agent for multiple insurance companies, to which
he directly submitted applications for insurance on behalf of his clients. When
he did not serve as a general agent for a particular insurance company, he
submitted applications through another general agency. Nalbandian and
Frenville were licensed insurance producers and co-owners of Holmdel, a
general agency, and Red Rock, a retail agency.
As early as 2000, the parties began doing business with each other without
a written contract. Gimelstob had significantly more experience in the life
insurance industry than did defendants. Nevertheless, Gimelstob had many
wealthy clients who needed significant amounts of insurance, and it was
particularly helpful to those clients that Nalbandian was a CPA. It was also
A-3341-18T3
3
helpful to Gimelstob's older clients that defendants had significant experience
in medical underwriting. Gimelstob submitted a large volume of life insurance
applications through Holmdel, consisting of fifty-to-sixty percent of Holmdel's
business. Holmdel shared a larger percentage of commissions with Gimelstob
than with other producers.
Frenville acted as plaintiffs' principal contact at Holmdel, and he was
often invited to meet with Gimelstob's clients. While Gimelstob stated that he
had a good relationship with Frenville, Frenville described Gimelstob as
challenging, aggressive, and overly demanding, with unrealistic expectations
about what could be accomplished.
The October 29, 2013 Contract
On October 29, 2013, Holmdel, FBR, and Gimelstob entered into a written
contract, effective January 1, 2012, with a termination date of June 30, 2015.
The parties were represented by counsel. Nalbandian signed the contract on
behalf of Holmdel. Neither Nalbandian nor Frenville signed the agreement in
their individual capacity.
Paragraph seven of the contract addressed the parties' rights to terminate
the agreement, including for dishonest or fraudulent acts, indictment or
A-3341-18T3
4
conviction for violations of federal or state laws or regulations relating to the
insurance or securities industry, or breach of the agreement.
Exclusivity, Commissions, and Accountings
Under paragraph two of the agreement, plaintiffs agreed to place their life
insurance sales exclusively through Holmdel, with the exception of policies
issued by certain enumerated insurers with whom Gimelstob had general agency
agreements. In exchange, Holmdel agreed to pay plaintiffs commissions as to
these sales.1
The agreement further provided that Holmdel was obligated to provide
plaintiffs with two separate accountings, along with payment of the amounts
determined to be owed: (1) for the period between January 1, 2010 and
December 31, 2012; and (2) for the period between January 1, 2013 and July 31,
2013.
Frenville testified that in January 2014, he provided Gimelstob with a
single accounting, for the period through October 2013, along with a check for
$243,715.56 in commissions. He testified that the accounting was similar to
other commission statements he periodically provided to Gimelstob. However,
1
Because these policies were placed through Holmdel, all correspondence from
the insurance companies flowed through Holmdel.
A-3341-18T3
5
he admitted that the accounting addressed only those policies on which
defendants believed they owed plaintiffs money, and not all the policies
Gimelstob placed with them.
Plaintiffs denied that Holmdel produced the accountings mandated by the
agreement. Gimelstob and other FBR witnesses admitted receiving the check
for $243,715.56. However, they denied the check was accompanied by any
documentation, and stated that, as a result, they were unable to reconcile what
policies the check related to.
Gimelstob and other FBR witnesses testified that, as a general matter,
commission payments from Holmdel were not accompanied by any supporting
documentation or were accompanied with insufficient documentation. This was
a constant source of frustration throughout the business relationship because it
made it difficult for plaintiffs to reconcile the amounts paid with the
commissions owed.
Roy Kvalo, plaintiffs' forensic accounting expert, testified that under the
commission schedule set forth in the parties' agreement, defendants underpaid
plaintiffs' commissions in the amount of $2,348,976.10 and owed interest in the
amount of $328,062.
A-3341-18T3
6
Insurance Policies on Gimelstob's Life
The parties' agreement also required the purchase of three insurance
policies on Gimelstob's life: two policies to be purchased by Holmdel, and a
third policy to be purchased by Gimelstob.
Specifically, paragraph 5(h) of the agreement provided that Holmdel
would purchase and pay the premiums for two term life insurance policies on
Gimelstob's life: one for $3,000,000; and a second for $1,500,000. Barry
Gimelstob would designate the owners and beneficiaries of the $3,000,000
policy, and Holmdel would own the $1,500,000 policy and designate its
beneficiaries. Gimelstob's authorization for these policies would "survive the
termination of th[e] Agreement." Finally, paragraph 5(h) provided:
Holmdel has agreed to make these premium payments
relying upon the provision in paragraph 3e, which
relieves Holmdel of its obligation to make any further
payments of services fees and renewal overrides to FBR
once the proceeds of this policy have been paid.
At paragraph 6(h) of the agreement, FBR agreed to pay for a $1,500,000
permanent life insurance policy on the life of Gimelstob, so long as he was
living. Gimelstob's authorization for this policy, and FBR's obligation to pay
for it, would survive termination of the Agreement. If FBR failed to pay the
premiums, Holmdel would "have the right to pay said premiums and offset
A-3341-18T3
7
commissions owed to FBR against any premium that FBR fails to pay. Such
payment or premiums by Holmdel will not waive any rights Holmdel may have
under this Agreement." The owner and designated beneficiaries of this policy
were to be Holmdel or persons, entities, or trusts designated by Holmdel.
Paragraph 6(h) also stated: "This policy of insurance is specifically being
purchased for Holmdel's benefit with FBR's consent and agreement to fully pay
all premiums on this policy in exchange for Holmdel's agreement to grant to
FBR the service fees provided for in Section 3(d)."
Finally, as referenced above, at paragraphs 3(d) and 3(e) of the agreement,
the parties explained the consideration exchanged for the insurance policies as
follows:
d. In exchange for Barry Gimelstob's allowing Holmdel
to purchase a one million five hundred thousand dollar
($1,500,000) policy of life insurance on his life under
5(h) and FBR's contributions to the agreed purchase of
and continued payment of life insurance premiums on
the one million five hundred thousand dollar
($1,500,000) policy of life insurance on the life of
Barry Gimelstob provided for in paragraph 6(h) herein,
Holmdel agrees that for all sales by FBR of life
insurance policies since January 1, 2006, Holmdel will
pay the first one percent (1.0%) of service fees received
by Holmdel from any Current Carriers for such
policies.
e. In exchange for Holmdel's purchase of the three
million dollar ($3,000,000) policy of insurance
A-3341-18T3
8
provided for in paragraph 5(h) and Holmdel's payment
of premiums thereunder, FBR agrees that upon payment
of the proceeds of said policy, Holmdel shall have no
further obligation under this Agreement or any prior
agreements to continue paying service fees or renewal
overrides (renewal commissions payable under the
Carrier and Commissions Addendum less any direct
renewal commission payments from Current and New
Carriers). However, it remains the intent of the parties
that so long as Barry Gimelstob is living, Holmdel's
obligation to pay service fees and renewal overrides
shall remain in effect and nothing herein diminishes or
restricts FBR's right to continue to receive such
payments.
Frenville testified that the paragraph 5(h) $1.5 million term life insurance
policy to be paid for by Holmdel was viewed by defendants as a "key-person
insurance" policy, because if Gimelstob were to die, it would result in a
significant loss of revenue for Holmdel. He testified that the paragraph 6(h),
$1.5 million policy to be paid for by FBR but owned by Holmdel was in
exchange for Holmdel's agreement to pay service fees to Gimelstob, which
otherwise would be paid to the general agent. Finally, he testified that the
paragraph 5(h) $3 million term policy to be paid for by Holmdel but owned by
Gimelstob was meant to be "a buyout of all amounts that might be due to
[Gimelstob] or his estate in one clean swoop," including relieving Holmdel of
any obligation to pay renewal commissions.
A-3341-18T3
9
Gimelstob and Holmdel never purchased the three life insurance policies.
This resulted in a cost savings to Holmdel, but deprived defendants of the benefit
of the bargain, particularly since Gimelstob died during the course of the trial.
Gimelstob cooperated in obtaining the three insurance policies, to the
extent that he provided his medical records to Holmdel, which was responsible
for purchasing the policies. However, he would not agree to pay the "preferred"
rates that Holmdel obtained for him. Gimelstob would only agree to pay rates
based upon "super-preferred" status, which Holmdel was unable to obtain for
him due to his age and health status. According to Frenville, Gimelstob also
continually tried "to renegotiate . . . the terms of the coverage and who was going
to pay how much and who was going to pay what and what kind of policy."
Frenville testified that the required insurance policies remained an
outstanding issue throughout the term of the contract. However, it was
undisputed that no application was ever presented for Gimelstob to review and
sign. At most, Frenville produced an offer for coverage based upon a preferred
status rating. Defendants also never declared Gimelstob's refusal to proceed
with the insurance policies to be a breach of the parties' agreement, and never
threatened to terminate the contract on that basis. The parties continued to do
business notwithstanding the failure to purchase the policies.
A-3341-18T3
10
Finally, at trial, defendants did not produce a copy of the offer for
coverage that Frenville said he provided to Gimelstob, with Frenville testifying
that the illustration documents no longer existed. However, Frenville testified
to his recollection of the cost of the policies using a preferred status rating: the
annual premium on the $1.5 million term policy would be approximately
$18,900; the annual premium on the $3 million policy would be roughly
$37,800; and the annual premium for the $1.5 million universal life policy would
be about $46,100. Frenville did not know the cost of the policies using a super-
preferred status.
The S.P. Policy and the Question of Rebating
In furtherance of his insurance business, and seeking to serve high net-
worth individuals, Gimelstob cultivated a relationship with representatives from
J.P. Morgan Chase (JP Morgan). In early 2014, these representatives asked
Gimelstob to review and evaluate the life insurance policies owned by one o f
their clients, S.P. and design a more suitable program for her, consistent with
her financial and estate planning goals.
Over the course of about eight months, between March and November
2014, the parties performed a great deal of work to consummate the transaction,
which involved converting a whole life insurance policy with a significant ca sh
A-3341-18T3
11
value to a policy with a guaranteed death benefit. It was the largest transaction
in the history of the parties' relationship. For the most part, the parties
performed their normal roles in furtherance of the S.P. policy. Frenville
submitted the application with him signing as the agent, rather than Gimelstob.
According to plaintiffs, Frenville signed and submitted the application
himself due to: (1) Gimelstob's concerns that Frenville had not submitted all of
S.P.'s medical information to the issuing insurance company, Transamerica; and
(2) timing concerns in finalizing the policy, relating to the risk that the cost of
the policy would increase as a result of fluctuations in the market for Treasury
bills. According to plaintiffs, Gimelstob discussed these issues with Frenville,
and Frenville responded that he would sign the application if Gimelstob was
uncomfortable with how he was handling the case, and he would still pay
Gimelstob the entire commission.
Frenville admitted that Gimelstob refused to sign the application due to
concerns that Transamerica had not reviewed one of S.P.'s medical reports.
However, Frenville did not share Gimelstob's concern. He told Gimelstob that
Transamerica had not requested the records, and therefore believed he did not
need to provide them.
A-3341-18T3
12
Gimelstob provided an application to Frenville, which S.P. and her trustee
signed. Frenville then signed the application as the agent through Red Rock, his
retail agency, as Gimelstob had agreed to. Frenville did not tell Gimelstob that
he would not receive a commission if he did not sign the application, and in the
past Frenville had signed applications instead of Gimelstob without it affecting
the commission paid.
Frenville admitted that the medical records issue strained his relationship
with Gimelstob. Frenville highlighted that during a meeting with one of the J.P.
Morgan representatives, Gimelstob discussed the possibility of issuing a rebate
on S.P.'s policy, since the total cost of the premium over the course of the
contract had increased by hundreds of thousands of dollars due to market
fluctuations, and the policy would be issued in Florida, where rebating was
permitted. According to Frenville, prior to that meeting, he had told Gimelstob
on multiple occasions that rebating would not be permitted by Florida law, and
in any event, rebating was prohibited by Transamerica, the carrier with whom
they were dealing. Rebating also violated the parties' contract, under which FBR
agreed to comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations of
any applicable regulatory authority.
A-3341-18T3
13
Notwithstanding this issue, defendants decided not to terminate the
contract with plaintiffs. Frenville testified that, at Gimelstob's request, he
smoothed things over with the JP Morgan representatives, who expressed
disappointment and concern that the topic of rebating had been raised and noted
their fiduciary duty to discuss the issue with their client.
Plaintiffs disputed this version of events. They maintained that it was
Frenville who raised the issue of rebating and provided Gimelstob with the
Florida statute on the issue. Plaintiffs' witnesses testified that Gimelstob
provided this information to S.P.'s trustee at JP Morgan, who rejected it out-of-
hand, but was not angry or put off. After the S.P. matter, Gimelstob continued
to work with JP Morgan and several of S.P.'s family members.
Regarding rebating more generally, Frenville testified that the S.P. matter
was the only one in which the issue of rebating was raised. He had no concern
about Gimelstob offering rebates as a general matter. Nevertheless, at trial,
based upon documents plaintiffs produced in discovery, defendants alleged that
Gimelstob regularly engaged in rebating, and disguised his rebating through
payments to counsel and direct payments to insurance companies, allegedly on
behalf of clients. Defendants made some insurance companies aware of this
A-3341-18T3
14
conduct, and in 2018 Brighthouse Financial terminated its relationship with
Gimelstob.
Gimelstob denied that he ever engaged in rebating. He stated that many
of his clients were wealthy and had complicated financial portfolios. Therefore,
his clients often required legal advice regarding tax and estate issues. He stated
that the payments were not disguised rebates, but payments made to counsel on
behalf of clients for services rendered. Furthermore, the payments he made to
insurance companies on behalf of clients were merely a courtesy, in cases where
clients mistakenly submitted premium payments to him instead of the insurance
companies.
Ultimately, Transamerica issued a $30,000,000 policy to S.P., with an
effective date of September 13, 2014. S.P. paid a first-year premium of
$12,302,471. Under the commission schedule set forth in the agreement,
plaintiffs were entitled to a commission of $1,554,797.97 on the S.P. policy , but
were paid only $687,947.11. 2 Thus, plaintiffs maintained that $866,850.86 was
due and owing.
2
At Frenville's request, Gimelstob did not deposit the check until February
2015. Frenville explained that defendants were in the process of purchasing a
building and pending that transaction they wanted the money to remain in their
account.
A-3341-18T3
15
According to plaintiffs, at the time of the $687,947.11 payment, Frenville
promised to pay the remainder of the commission. Frenville denied this. He
testified that he told Gimelstob they needed to discuss the remainder of his
compensation on the case.
At trial, defendants maintained that the S.P. policy was outside the terms
of the agreement because of the amount of work defendants performed on the
case, and because Frenville ultimately signed the application, in part, due to
Gimelstob's having raised the issue of rebating.
Gimelstob continued to provide work to Holmdel notwithstanding the
parties' ongoing disagreement about the appropriate commission to be paid on
the S.P. policy. However, Holmdel no longer paid commissions to Gimelstob.
As far as Frenville knew, no steps were taken to reserve money to compensate
Gimelstob for any money he might be owed. Ultimately, defendants decided to
terminate their relationship with plaintiffs at the conclusion of the contract.
In July 2015, plaintiffs filed their complaint against Holmdel, Nalbandian,
Frenville, and Lifemark Partners, Inc. (Lifemark). They filed a first amended
complaint in February 2017, and a second amended complaint on May 2017. In
their second amended complaint, plaintiffs added Red Rock as a defendant, and
they asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of
A-3341-18T3
16
good faith and fair dealing, conversion, unjust enrichment, fraud, and breach of
fiduciary duty and the duty of loyalty. They also demanded imposition of a
constructive trust on defendants' assets and sought an accounting and injunctive
relief.
Defendants filed answers to the complaints, denying liability and asserting
defenses and counterclaims. In their counterclaims, defendants demanded
damages relating to the sale of life insurance to S.P.; alleged Gimelstob breached
the parties' agreement and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing
to cooperate in the purchase of insurance on his life; and sought a declaration
that they had no further obligation to pay to plaintiffs service fees or renewal
commissions for any life insurance policies written with Holmdel since 2006.
In July 2018, the trial judge granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment in part, dismissing plaintiffs' claims seeking a constructive trust and
injunctive relief. In August 2018, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of all
claims against Lifemark.
The trial judge conducted the bench trial between October 16 and
November 29, 2018. Gimelstob died prior to his scheduled testimony. The trial
judge therefore admitted into evidence portions of his deposition testimony and
interrogatory answers.
A-3341-18T3
17
At the close of plaintiffs' case, defendants moved for judgment as to the
claims asserted against the individual defendants. The trial judge initially
dismissed the fraud claim, but later granted plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
because she had not yet considered Gimelstob's testimony.
On February 22, 2019, the trial judge issued a written opinion and entered
final judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $2,348,976.10:
$1,661,029.10 against Holmdel; and $687,947 against Holmdel and Red Rock,
jointly and severally. The trial judge dismissed all claims against Nalbandian
and Frenville in their individual capacity.
On March 6, 2019, the trial judge held a conference with the parties, at
which plaintiffs sought clarification as to their ability to pursue a piercing the
corporate veil claim in post-judgment enforcement proceedings. The trial judge
stated that her written opinion sufficiently addressed the claim, and she would
not address post-judgment enforcement issues.
On appeal, plaintiffs raise the following arguments for this court's
consideration:
POINT I
THE TRIAL [JUDGE] ERRED BY FAILING TO
IMPUTE PERSONAL LIABILITY AND FIDUCIARY
OBLIGATIONS UPON NALBANDIAN AND
FRENVILLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
A-3341-18T3
18
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND INSURANCE'S
REGULATORY SCHEME AND PURSUANT TO
COMMON LAW[.]
A. The Regulation of Insurance Producers in
Accordance with Title 17 and the
Administrative Code[.]
B. The Code Permits the Imputation of Personal
Liability as to Nalbandian and Frenville[.]
C. Pursuant to the Code, Nalbandian and
Frenville Owed Plaintiffs a Fiduciary Duty
[W]hich Was Breached[.]
D. The Trial [Judge] Not Only Misconstrued the
Department of Banking and Insurance's
Regulatory Scheme Which Imputes Personal
Liability to Nalbandian and Frenville, but
Ignored the Substantial Evidence Conferring a
Fiduciary Duty Upon Nalbandian and
Frenville at Common Law[.]
POINT II
THE [TRIAL JUDGE] FAILED TO CLARIFY THAT
[HER] JUDGMENT DID NOT DISCHARGE ANY
PERSONAL LIABILITY OF NALBANDIAN AND
FRENVILLE ARISING FROM THE PIERCING OF
HOLMDEL'S CORPORATE VEIL[.]
POINT III
THE [TRIAL JUDGE] ERRED BY FAILING TO
HONOR THAT NALBANDIAN AND FRENVILLE
WERE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR THE
COMMISSION OF FRAUD AS IT IGNORED THE
SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE[.]
A-3341-18T3
19
A. The Record Before the Trial [Judge]
Demonstrates Nalbandian's and Frenville's
Commission of Common Law Fraud, [W]hich
the [Trial Judge] Completely Ignored and
Failed to Analyze[.]
B. The Record Before the Trial [Judge]
Demonstrates Nalbandian and Frenville's
Engagement of Equitable Fraud, [W]hich the
[Trial Judge] Completely Ignored and Failed
to Analyze[.]
POINT IV
THE [JUDGE] ERRED BY FAILING TO CONSIDER
SUBSTANTIAL AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, AND
MISAPPLIED THE LAW THAT DEMONSTRATES
THAT NALBANDIAN AND FRENVILLE ARE
PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR UNJUST
ENRICHMENT[.]
A. Law of Conversion[.]
B. The Trial [Judge] Ignored Nalbandian's and
Frenville's Ownership Interest in Holmdel and
Their Respective Actions with Regard to
Monies Due and Owed [to] Plaintiffs, [W]hich
Evidences Their Commission of
Conversion[.]
POINT V
THE [TRIAL JUDGE] ERRED BY FAILING TO
CONSIDER SUBSTANTIAL AND CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE, AND MISAPPLIED THE LAW THAT
DEMONSTRATES THAT NALBANDIAN AND
A-3341-18T3
20
FRENVILLE ARE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR
UNJUST ENRICHMENT[.]
A. The Trial [Judge] Failed to Properly Weigh
the Overwhelming Evidence Before it and
Improperly Concluded that the Parties'
Relationship Was Only Derived from
Contract[.]
On cross-appeal, defendants raise the following arguments for this court's
consideration:
POINT I
DEFENDANTS' CROSS-APPEAL SHOULD BE
GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY[.]
A. The Trial [Judge] Committed Reversible Error
When [She] Failed to Award Damages,
Measured by the Face Value of the Life
Insurance Policies Required by the Agreement
to be Purchased For Defendants' Benefit,
Given The Plaintiff Gimelstob's Admissions
that He Failed To Sign an Application And
Submit Himself For The Policies Required by
the Agreement.
B. The Trial [Judge] Committed Reversible Error
When [She] Dismissed Defendants' Claim for
a Setoff Or Recoupment, Measured by the
Face Value of the Life Insurance Policies
Required by the Agreement, Against Any
Judgment Awarded to Plaintiffs Based On
Plaintiff's Admissions That He Failed to Sign
an Application and Submit Himself for the
Policies Required by the Agreement.
A-3341-18T3
21
C. The Trial [Judge] Committed Reversible Error
When [She] Awarded Plaintiffs Damages
Arising from Breaches of the Agreement
Despite the Clear Proof Of Rebating by the
Plaintiffs in Violation of New Jersey Law, the
Policies of the Insurance Carriers
Underwriting and Insurance Policies, and the
Terms of the Agreement.
D. The Trial [Judge] Committed Reversible Error
When [She] Awarded Damages to Plaintiffs,
Inclusive of a Commission on the S.P. Life
Insurance Policy, Despite the Presentation of
Proof that the Plaintiffs Had Offered a Rebate
to the Trustee Purchasing The Policy on
Behalf of the Insured as well as the
Presentation of Proofs of Rampant Rebating
by the Plaintiffs.
E. The Trial [Judge] Committed Reversible Error
When [She] Awarded Damages to Plaintiffs,
Inclusive of a Commission on the S.P. Life
Insurance Policy, under the Terms of the
Agreement When Factors such as the Unique
Nature of this Application and Work Done by
Plaintiffs, and the Refusal of Mr. Gimelstob to
Sign as the Producer for the S.P. Policy,
Placed it Clearly Outside the Agreement's
Terms.
II.
We begin by addressing whether the judge erred in dismissing plaintiffs'
claims against Nalbandian and Frenville in their individual capacities.
A-3341-18T3
22
We will not disturb a trial judge's factual findings unless they are so
manifestly unsupported by the competent, relevant evidence that affirmance
would constitute an injustice. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Northfield Med. Ctr., 228 N.J.
596, 619 (2017). We are particularly deferential to the trial judge's assessment
of witnesses' credibility because the judge was able to observe the witnesses as
they testified. Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 205 N.J. 150, 169 (2011).
We review questions of law de novo. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm.
of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
A. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Plaintiffs appeal from the judge's dismissal of their breach of fiduciary
duty claim against Nalbanian and Frenville in their individual capacities.
The trial judge rejected the breach of fiduciary duty claim, reasoning that
plaintiffs erred in relying upon N.J.A.C. 11:17A-4.10, which provides that "[a]n
insurance producer acts in a fiduciary capacity in the conduct of his or her
insurance business," and N.J.A.C. 11:17A-1.6(c), which provides that
"[l]icensed partners, officers and directors, and all owners with an ownership
interest of [ten] percent or more in the organization shall be held responsible for
all insurance related conduct of the organization licensee, any of its branch
offices, its other licensed officers or partners, and its employees," because the
A-3341-18T3
23
New Jersey Insurance Producer Licensing Act, N.J.S.A. 17:22A-26 to -57, and
the regulations promulgated thereunder, were intended to protect "consumers of
insurance, i.e., insureds, and not . . . sophisticated insurance producers such as
[p]laintiffs." The trial judge also found that the claim lacked merit under the
common law because the parties' relationship was contractual in nature and
defendants did not dominate or control plaintiffs. The trial judge's ruling is
supported by both the law and the facts.
As to the statutorily imposed fiduciary duty, it is clear that in both
structure and substance the regulations are intended to protect insurance
consumers. Our Court has recognized that insurance brokers owe duties to their
clients, given the brokers' special knowledge and expertise. See Aden v. Fortsh,
169 N.J. 64, 78-79 (2001) (explaining that insurance intermediaries must act in
a fiduciary capacity because of "the increasing complexity of the insurance
industry and the specialized knowledge required to understand all of its
intricacies"). As such, the judge properly concluded that plaintiff's reliance on
N.J.A.C. 11:17A-4.10 and N.J.A.C. 11:17A-1.6(c) to substantiate their breach
of fiduciary duty claim was misplaced.
The judge's conclusion that plaintiffs did not establish the existence of a
common law fiduciary duty is also well-supported. "The essence of a fiduciary
A-3341-18T3
24
relationship is that one party places trust and confidence in another who is in a
dominant or superior position. A fiduciary relationship arises between two
persons when one person is under a duty to act for or give advice for the benefit
of another on matters within the scope of their relationship." See F.G. v.
MacDonnell, 150 N.J. 550, 563 (1997) (recognizing the fiduciary relationship
between a parishioner and pastoral counselor).
Here, the parties were sophisticated, licensed insurance producers with
significant industry experience. The parties formalized their business
relationship through a written contract while represented by counsel. To
recognize such a duty in the context of the parties' business relationship here
would be inconsistent with the purpose of imposing fiduciary duties, which is to
protect the vulnerable from exploitation and abuse by those in a superior,
dominant, or controlling position. See id. at 565. In fact, plaintiffs arguably
were in the superior position given that they initiated more than half of
defendants' business. As such, the judge properly concluded that no common
law fiduciary relationship existed in this context.
B. Fraud and Piercing the Corporate Veil
Plaintiffs argue the trial judge erred by dismissing their fraud claim
against Nalbandian and Frenville, and by not clarifying that her judgment did
A-3341-18T3
25
not discharge any personal liability of Nalbandian and Frenville arising from the
piercing of Holmdel's corporate veil. As to the latter issue, plaintiffs assert that
defendants' banking records, which were secured through post-judgment efforts,
reflect a post-judgment enforcement issue. Plaintiffs request this court clarify
whether they may piece the corporate veil on that evidence in a post-judgment
proceeding.
In count five of the second amended complaint, plaintiffs asserted a claim
of fraud. Plaintiffs specifically alleged that defendants "misrepresented to the
insurer that . . . they were S.P.'s agent in connection with their plan to convert
commission payments due to Gimelstob/FBR." In addition, plaintiffs sought to
impose individual liability upon Nalbandian and Frenville with respect to the
alleged fraud, asserting that they were "entitled to 'pierce the corporate veil' of
Holmdel and Red Rock as a result of Nalbandian's and/or Frenville's use of the
corporation and limited liability company form to commit a fraud upon the
Plaintiffs[.]"
The trial judge found that Gimelstob acquiesced in Frenville's signing
S.P.'s insurance application; that no misrepresentations were made to the insurer
on the S.P. policy, as commissions were paid on the policy in the normal course;
and that the parties' dispute over their share of the S.P. commission was a matter
A-3341-18T3
26
of contract. Accordingly, in her post-trial opinion, the trial judge rejected the
allegations of fraud and the attempt to pierce the corporate veil, finding that the
fraud claim had not been pled with particularity and the trial proofs did not
support a finding of fraud or for piercing the corporate veil .
As to plaintiffs' ability to bring a piercing the corporate veil claim in post-
judgment enforcement proceedings, she responded that her written opinion
sufficiently addressed the veil-piercing claim, and she would not address post-
judgment enforcement issues.
On appeal, plaintiffs assert that their fraud claim was supported by proof
that defendants systematically underpaid commissions and deprived plaintiffs
of documentation needed to determine that the commissions had been underpaid,
including the accountings required under the parties' contract. However, the
fraud claim plaintiffs pled in their second amended complaint related solely to
the S.P. policy.
Rule 4:5-8(a) requires that a party plead fraud claims with particularity.
Piscitelli v. Classic Residence by Hyatt, 408 N.J. Super. 83, 116 (App. Div.
2009). Additionally, plaintiffs are not permitted to assert new claims on appeal
which were not pursued below. Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229,
A-3341-18T3
27
234 (1973). Although we need not address plaintiffs' revised theory of the
alleged fraud, we add the following remarks.
The trial judge rejected plaintiffs' interpretation of the evidence. In her
post-trial opinion, the trial judge found that defendants often did not provide
documentation as to their commission payments to plaintiffs and did not produce
the accountings required under the contract. However, she attributed those
failures to negligence and under-staffing, not fraud. The trial judge stated that
"[d]uring Frenville's testimony, it was clear to [her] that he was often
overwhelmed by his responsibilities and needed assistance, especially from a
bookkeeper or controller who could better handle the financial records ." The
trial judge also cited Gimelstob's deposition testimony to the same effect. We
see no reason to second-guess the trial judge's interpretation of the factual
evidence, as it is supported by the record.
Moreover, the trial judge found that the facts did not support a common
law fraud claim, which requires clear and convincing evidence of: (1) a material
misrepresentation of fact; (2) defendants' knowledge of the falsity; (2)
defendants' intent that plaintiffs rely upon the misrepresentation; (4) plaintiffs'
reasonable reliance upon the misrepresentation; and (5) resulting damages.
Banco Popular N. Am. v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161, 172-73 (2005).
A-3341-18T3
28
The record also does not support a claim of equitable fraud, which differs
from legal fraud by eliminating the requirements of knowledge of the falsity and
an intention to obtain undue advantage therefrom. Jewish Center of Sussex
County v. Whale, 86 N.J. 619, 625 (1981); DepoLink Court Reporting & Litig.
Support Servs. v. Rochman, 430 N.J. Super. 325, 336 (App. Div. 2013). The
record clearly shows that plaintiffs did not rely upon defendants' representations
as to what commissions were owed. To the contrary, the record reflects that
plaintiffs had full knowledge of the insurance policies they sold and the
commissions owed to them pursuant to those policies, and they were persistent
in requesting documentation from defendants so that they could independently
verify that the correct amounts had been paid on the accounts payable. Plaintiffs
also obtained a contractual commitment that defendants would prepare
accountings as well as a concomitant legal remedy for defendants' failure to
produce the required accountings. See DepoLink, 430 N.J. Super. at 337
(finding no fraud or equitable fraud where a party "rejected the collection
agency's attempts to collect the debt" and "never relied on the truth of any of the
statements the collection agency made").
On the veil-piercing claim, plaintiffs argue that they were wrongfully
denied discovery regarding defendants' finances, which prevented them from
A-3341-18T3
29
establishing a basis for piercing the corporate veil of Holmdel and/or Red Rock.
Based upon documentation obtained post-judgment, they maintain that veil-
piercing is appropriate based upon Nalbandian's having "loot[ed]" and
"pilfer[ed]" corporate funds. We see no such issue.
The record reflects that during discovery plaintiffs served multiple
subpoenas upon Shore River Community Bank, Shore Community Bank, and
other entities, which defendants moved to quash. The subpoenas sought
"[c]omplete copies of all statements of account reflecting transactions" of
Holmdel and Red Rock "with respect to the period of November 2014 through
and including December 2015," as well as the entire file regarding a mortgage
and promissory note dated December 2, 2015.
The subpoenas related to the fact that in late 2014, when Frenville
provided Gimelstob with partial payment of the commission for the S.P. policy,
he asked Gimelstob to not deposit the check immediately, because defendants
were purchasing a building and wanted the lender to see a higher balance in their
account.
By orders dated April 13, 2017 and April 13, 2018, the trial judge quashed
the subpoenas. However, in her April 13, 2017 ruling, the trial judge permitted
plaintiffs to seek her permission to serve the subpoenas, upon presentation of
A-3341-18T3
30
evidence reflecting their relevance to the case. Plaintiffs did not pursue that
option. In her April 13, 2018 ruling, the trial judge stated that plaintiffs could
serve the subpoenas at trial. Again, plaintiffs did not pursue that option.
At trial, plaintiffs did not seek to admit documents or testimony relating
to defendants' finances. Plaintiffs also did not call Nalbandian as a witness
during their case-in-chief, notwithstanding that they had issued a subpoena for
his testimony. During the trial, Nalbandian injured his back and could no longer
attend as previously planned. On the final day of the trial, plaintiffs changed
course and moved to admit excerpts from Nalbandian's deposition testimony as
rebuttal evidence and for an adverse inference based upon his failing to testify.
Plaintiffs did not seek a continuance to permit Nalbandian to testify .
The trial judge denied the motion to read in the deposition testimony,
finding that plaintiffs' counsel had not provided the defense with notice of intent
to call Nalbandian as a rebuttal witness, such that he could have been made
available to testify both on direct and cross-examination. The trial judge also
declined to continue the trial beyond its scheduled end date. The trial judge
reiterated this ruling in the post-trial opinion and explained that the proposed
deposition excerpts did not constitute proper rebuttal evidence and denied
plaintiffs' request for an adverse inference.
A-3341-18T3
31
Thereafter, this court denied plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record
to include documents obtained during post-judgment discovery. Nevertheless,
plaintiffs included the post-judgment subpoena, and they make arguments about
what that subpoena allegedly revealed.
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any abuse of discretion in the trial judge's
having quashed the subpoenas for lack of relevance. In re Custodian of Records,
Criminal Div. Manager, 214 N.J. 147, 162-63 (2013) (applying abuse of
discretion standard of review to quashing subpoena). Nothing in the record
suggests that the subpoenas sought information relating to the fraud and veil
piercing claims, or that they raised this issue before the trial judge.
Plaintiffs also have not demonstrated any abuse of discretion in the trial
judge's refusal to admit Nalbandian's deposition testimony at trial. Rowe v. Bell
& Gossett Co., 239 N.J. 531, 551-52 (2019) (applying abuse of discretion
standard to evidentiary rulings). Nor have they shown an abuse of discretion in
the trial judge's decision to end the trial without a continuance for Nalbandian
to testify on rebuttal. State v. Hayes, 205 N.J. 522, 537 (2011) (stating that
whether to grant continuance is within trial judge's discretion); see also State v.
Jones, 232 N.J. 308, 311 (2018) (noting that "[i]n our judicial system, the trial
[judge] controls the flow of proceedings in the courtroom. As a reviewing court,
A-3341-18T3
32
we apply the abuse of discretion standard when examining the trial [judge's]
exercise of that control").
It was plaintiffs' burden to establish a fraud or injustice that supported
piercing the corporate veil in order to impose individual liability upon the
corporate principals. Richard A. Pulaski Constr. Co. v. Air Frame Hangars, Inc.,
195 N.J. 457, 472-73 (2008). They simply did not do so. The record contains
no evidence that defendants failed to observe corporate formalities, nor any
evidence about the corporate defendants' finances. Verni ex rel. Burstein v.
Harry M. Stevens, Inc., 387 N.J. Super 160, 199-200 (App Div. 2006).
Furthermore, contrary to plaintiffs' appellate arguments, the record does not
support a conclusion that plaintiffs' failure to produce such evidence was the
result of either erroneous rulings, or defendants' obstruction or recalcitrance.
C. Conversion
Plaintiffs contend the trial judge erred by not holding Nalbandian and
Frenville liable for conversion for failing to pay the commissions owed to
plaintiffs. We disagree.
Conversion is defined as the intentional exercise of dominion or control
over another's property, which is inconsistent with the owner's rights. Bondi v.
Citigroup, Inc., 423 N.J. Super. 377, 431 (App. Div. 2011). However, "[t]o
A-3341-18T3
33
avoid transforming a breach of contract into an act of conversion," the money at
issue must clearly belong to the injured party, and be identifiable. Id. at 431-
32. Thus, a conversion claim will not be sustained in the context of a creditor -
debtor relationship, or a dispute about monies owed. Ibid.Here, there was no specifically identifiable money that allegedly was
converted by defendants. Rather, as the trial judge found, the record reflects a
creditor-debtor relationship, with a dispute about the amount of money owed
within the context of a contractual relationship. Therefore, as the judge
determined, the tort of conversion could not apply. Even if it did—which is not
the case—there exists no evidence in the record that Nalbandian and Frenville
distributed commission money belonging to plaintiffs or directed the conversion
of such money. We therefore conclude that the judge properly dismissed
plaintiffs' conversion claim.
D. Unjust Enrichment
Plaintiffs contend the trial judge erred by not holding Nalbandian and
Frenville personally liable for unjust enrichment, noting the failure to pay
commissions owed, and the alleged fiduciary relationship between the parties.
"To establish unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must show both that defendant
received a benefit and that retention of that benefit without payment would be
A-3341-18T3
34
unjust." VRG Corp. v. GKN Realty Corp., 135 N.J. 539, 554 (1994). However,
"[u]nder New Jersey law, a tort remedy does not arise from a contractual
relationship unless the breaching party owes an independent duty imposed by
law." Saltiel v. GSI Consultants, Inc., 170 N.J. 297, 316 (2002). Accordingly,
"[t]he unjust enrichment doctrine requires that plaintiff show that it expected
remuneration from the defendant at the time it performed or conferred a benefit
on defendant and that the failure of remuneration enriched defendant beyond its
contractual rights." VRG, 135 N.J. at 554. "Because unjust enrichment is an
equitable remedy resorted to only when there was no express contract providing
for remuneration, a plaintiff may recover on one or the other theory, but not
both." Caputo v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 300 N.J. Super. 498, 507 (App. Div.
1997).
Here the judge correctly found that, as in Saltiel, the parties' relationship
was governed by contract, and their disputes over monies owed was governed
by the terms of that contract. The parties' relationship was not a fiduciary one.
The individual defendants were not parties to the contract, and plaintiffs may
not assert tort claims against the individual defendants to enhance the benefit
for which they bargained. As previously discussed, plaintiffs presented no
evidence that Nalbandian or Frenville were unjustly enriched by money owed to
A-3341-18T3
35
plaintiffs by inappropriately taking commission money from the corporate
accounts, and the record does not support plaintiffs' argument that their failure
of proof was caused by arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable judicial decisions,
or obstruction by defendants. The trial judge properly dismissed the unjust
enrichment claims.
III.
We now turn to defendants' cross-appeal. Defendants argue the trial judge
erred by not awarding damages to them, or offsetting plaintiffs' damage award
or awarding a recoupment, measured by the face value of the insurance policies
on Gimelstob's life that were contractually mandated but not purchased, minus
premium adjustments.
Defendants Holmdel, Nalbandian, and Frenville counterclaimed that
plaintiffs breached the parties' agreement through Gimelstob's failure to
cooperate in the purchase of insurance on his life and that plaintiffs breached
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
As relief for these causes of action, defendants sought compensatory and
consequential damages, attorneys' fees, interest and cost of suit. More
specifically, defendants sought a declaration that they had no further obliga tion
to pay service fees to plaintiffs, and no obligation to pay renewal commissions
A-3341-18T3
36
for any life insurance policies written with Holmdel since 2006. Defendants
also asserted as an affirmative defense that "[d]efendants are entitled to a setoff
or to recoup certain damages as a result of the [p]laintiff's conduct and/or breach
of contract."
The trial judge set forth comprehensive findings and conclusions as to
these issues in her post-trial opinion. First, the trial judge concluded that
Gimelstob failed to cooperate in acquiring insurance policies on his life:
The court is not persuaded that Gimelstob's position
regarding his rating was reasonable. Despite his
statement that he might want to apply for other policies
in the future, he admitted he had not done so. It is clear
that the permanent policy would have been the most
expensive and, by his failure to cooperate, Plaintiffs
benefitted financially. He also stated that it was
Defendant's obligation to get the insurance and to get
the best rates; however, this obligation to "get the best
rates" does not appear in the Agreement, nor does the
Agreement require that the insurance policies be issued
at "super preferred" or "preferred plus" rates, which
Gimelstob admitted in his deposition.
As a result of this breach of contract, the trial judge found that plaintiffs
were not entitled to receive service fees, thus granting defendants some of the
relief requested. However, the trial judge found that plaintiffs were still entitled
to payment of renewal commissions, notwithstanding Gimelstob's failure to
cooperate in the purchase of the life insurance policies, due to a failure of proof
A-3341-18T3
37
on the part of defendants. The trial judge explained that "[t]he issue of renewal
overrides . . . was not addressed by Defendants in their pleadings, at trial or in
the post-trial submission," and that although the defendants' counterclaim
demanded a declaration that plaintiffs "have no further right to any renewal
commissions under any policies written with Holmdel," paragraph 3(e) of the
parties' Agreement "distinguishes renewal overrides from renewal commissions
directly paid to plaintiffs[.]"
Finally, the trial judge found that the proofs did not support defendants'
claim of entitlement to a setoff or recoupment based upon the face value of the
policies. The trial judge found that Gimelstob's obtaining life insurance was not
critical to Holmdel's entry into the agreement or remaining in the agreement,
and Frenville failed to work out the details of the policies in conjunction with
Gimelstob's estate plan. Additionally, the trial judge found that defendants
presented insufficient proof as to the details of the policies proposed to
Gimelstob, including copies of the applications and the quoted premiums, such
that the trial judge was not equipped to determine a reasonable setoff or
recoupment, which would require deducting the cost of the premiums paid from
the face value of the policies.
A-3341-18T3
38
We review the interpretation of a contract de novo. Serico v. Rothberg,
234 N.J. 168, 178 (2018). If the contract terms are clear, this court applies the
contract as written, without "rewrit[ing] a contract for the parties better than or
different from the one they wrote for themselves." Kieffer v. Best Buy, 205 N.J.
213, 223 (2011).
A breach of contract claim requires proof, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that: the parties entered into a valid contract, with certain terms;
plaintiff fulfilled its obligations under the contract; defendant failed to perform
its obligations under the contract; and plaintiff sustained damages as a result.
Woytas v. Greenwood Tree Experts, Inc., 237 N.J. 501, 512 (2019). Regarding
damages, "[a] breaching party is 'liable for all of the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of [the] contract.'" Id. at 514 (quoting Pickett v.
Lloyd's, 131 N.J. 457, 474 (1993)).
As for defendants' request for a setoff, setoff is an equitable right that
provides for affirmative recovery on a claim that may be independent of the
transaction upon which plaintiffs' claims were based. Miah v. Ahmed, 179 N.J.
511, 527 (2004). By contrast, recoupment is an equitable defense, the purpose
of which is to examine the parties' transaction and achieve a just result.
Beneficial, 86 N.J. at 609, 612; Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Dir., Div. of
A-3341-18T3
39
Taxation, 26 N.J. Tax 93, 99-100 (App. Div. 2011). Recoupment may only be
utilized to reduce or extinguish the plaintiff's recovery, whereas setoff may be
awarded for any amount to which defendant is entitled. Beneficial, 86 N.J. at
609, 611.
Here, the trial judge fairly determined that Gimelstob breached the
contract by failing to cooperate in the purchase of the required life insurance
policies. Moreover, the record supports the trial judge's assessment of the
appropriate damages for that breach of contract: denial of plaintiffs' requests
for service fees, as per the clear contract language regarding the consideration
exchanged for the policies, set forth in paragraphs 5(h) and 6(h) of the contract.
The trial judge fairly rejected additional damages premised upon renewal
overrides, which are also set forth in the contract as consideration for the policies
in paragraph 5(h), due to a lack of proof on this element of the breach of contract
claim.
The trial judge also rejected defendants' request for a setoff or recoupment
premised upon the face value of the policies, minus the premiums that would
have been paid for the policies. The trial judge's rejection was based, in large
part, upon her rejection of Frenville's testimony about the alleged premiums for
A-3341-18T3
40
the policies, which prevented her from calculating a fair setoff or recoupment
amount. There is no basis to disturb that credibility assessment.
The trial judge also determined that a setoff or recoupment would not be
equitable in light of the fact that the insurance policies were not critical to
Holmdel's entry into the contract, as evidenced by defendants' failure to work
out the details of the policies for Gimelstob's estate plan, and their failure to
terminate the agreement based upon Gimelstob's breach in failing to cooperate
in the purchase of the policies.
There is no basis for us to disturb the trial judge's assessment of the factual
record, or the conclusions it reached as a result, and defendants have not
established any basis for appellate intervention.
IV.
Defendants next contend the trial judge erred by awarding plaintiffs
damages for breach of contract, including a commission relating to the S.P.
policy. They contend such damages should have been denied based upon clear
proof that plaintiffs engaged in rebating in violation of New Jersey law, and
offered to engage in rebating with respect to the S.P. policy.
In their contract, the parties agreed to comply with all federal, state, and
local laws, rules, and regulations of any applicable regulatory authority.
A-3341-18T3
41
Rebating of insurance premiums is prohibited under N.J.A.C. 11:17A-2.3. The
parties' contract also provided a procedure for terminating the agreement based
upon specified acts, which included dishonest or fraudulent acts. Defendants
never initiated the termination procedures and termination of the agreement
would not have negated defendants' obligation to pay commissions to plaintiffs,
because the contract stated: "Unless otherwise required by law or pursuant to
any general agency agreement, FBR will receive commissions subsequent to
termination of this Agreement with respect to insurance policies placed prior to
termination of this Agreement, in accordance with the Carrier and Commission
Addendum."
In their answer to the second amended complaint, defendants asserted that
plaintiffs violated the dishonest or fraudulent acts provision of the contract.
They also asserted affirmative defenses to plaintiffs' recovering on their claims,
including that plaintiffs breached the agreement and committed unlawful acts.
In addition, in their counterclaims, defendants alleged that Gimelstob engaged
in "inappropriate dealings" with S.P., and breached the contract, such that
defendants handled the S.P. transaction and should receive the entire S.P.
commission, and plaintiffs should not be entitled to renewal commissions.
A-3341-18T3
42
In her post-trial opinion, the trial judge rejected defendants' assertion that
Gimelstob engaged in rebating and concluded that any discussion of rebating
with respect to the S.P. policy was the fault of both parties. Gimelstob's
payments to Brach Eichler were not for illegal rebating, but for "assistance from
sophisticated tax and estate planning professionals to service [extremely wealthy
clients] properly." Nor was Gimelstob solely responsible for discussions of
rebating with JP Morgan, as the trial judge explained that testimony from an
FBR employee suggested that "Frenville was pushing [Gimelstob] to speak to
JP Morgan about rebating because of the change of premiums for the S.P.
policy," and it appeared that it "was discussed between Frenville and Gimelstob,
and also with [the JP Morgan representative] to some extent[.]" Based upon
these findings, the trial judge dismissed the counterclaim relating to the S.P.
policy. We will not second-guess this determination.
V.
Finally, defendants contend the trial judge erred by awarding a full
commission to plaintiffs relating to the S.P. policy pursuant to the contract
terms. They argue that Gimelstob's refusal to sign the application placed the
S.P. policy outside the contract's terms, and the partial commission they pai d to
A-3341-18T3
43
plaintiffs was reasonable given the amount of work defendants performed to
consummate the transaction.
The contract provided that FBR would be paid premiums for policies sold
by FBR through Holmdel. In their answer to the second amended complaint,
defendants denied that plaintiffs were entitled to any additional commission on
the S.P. policy. In their counterclaims, they asserted that any commission paid
to plaintiffs on the S.P. policy should be returned because the policy was not
sold by FBR or Gimelstob, and the policy would not have been sold but for the
actions of defendants.
The trial judge made extensive findings regarding the work performed on
the S.P. policy, and largely accepted plaintiffs' version of events. The trial judge
explicitly rejected defendants' allegation that they performed work on the S.P.
policy that was in excess of the norm for other policies sold through Gimelstob,
defendants' arguments about the significance of Frenville's signing the
application, and defendant's allegations with respect to rebating. Thus, the trial
judge ordered that plaintiffs were entitled to the full commission on the S.P.
policy and dismissed defendants' counterclaims with respect to the S.P. policy.
The trial judge's findings are supported by the record, and we see no basis for
appellate intervention.
A-3341-18T3
44
Affirmed.
A-3341-18T3
45