Search Site
Areas of Practice learn more about our practice
About Us

New Jersey Litigation Attorneys

Experience, expertise, and efficiency

Our New Providence, New Jersey firm's founding three partners—Daniel J. Pomeroy, Karen E. Heller, and John M. Ley—have accumulated decades of combined experience to help our clients—insurance companies, corporations, and individuals throughout the state—with complex litigation issues.

Client satisfaction is our primary goal

Our partners, associates, and staff work as a team to provide our clients with the highest levels of service possible. When you engage with Pomeroy, Heller & Ley, you receive professional and courteous service from every member of the firm. Client satisfaction is our ultimate goal.

Practice Areas

Focus yields results

Our firm concentrates on the practice of several specific areas of the law:

This focus allows us to build on our experience and provide the highest quality legal counsel to our clients, achieving excellent outcomes. We work hard on our clients' behalf and have earned a top rating among insurance companies for our efficiency and results.

We have tried hundreds of cases in the courtroom with more than a 90 percent success rate. Our record as appellate attorneys is similarly impressive.

Further, Dan Pomeroy is the co-author of New Jersey Auto Insurance Law (Gann Law Books), a standard textbook in its 14th printing and the third most cited authoritative source in New Jersey law.

Contact us

To speak with a Pomeroy, Heller & Ley, LLC attorney, call 973-467-9600 or contact us online.



The Pomeroy, Heller & Ley track record:

  • Wadeer v. New Jersey Manufacturers Ins. Co., 220 N.J. 591 (2015) (landmark decision that established as statewide law the pro-insurer “fairly debatable” standard for claims of alleged insurer bad faith in UM and UIM context).
  • James v. New Jersey Manufacturers Ins. Co., 216 N.J. 552 (2014) (established as statewide law that the UM and UIM step down clause nullification provision set forth in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1 (f) could only fairly and constitutionally be applied to insurers on a prospective, not retroactive basis).
  • Myska v. New Jersey Manufacturers Ins. Co., 440 N.J. Super. 458 (App. Div. 2015) (landmark decision in New Jersey regarding class actions, and the ability of the Court to strike class allegations from the lawsuit without first permitting discovery on factual issues concerning whether class was certifiable).
  • Petersen v. New Jersey Manufacturers Ins. Co., 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 995 (App. Div. 2014) (plaintiffs’ bad faith claim rejected and reservation of rights letter by insurer in line with requirements articulated by New Jersey caselaw upheld where it broadened “intentional acts” exclusion from intentional actor to all members of intentional actor’s family).
  • Palmer a/a/o Kovacs v. New Jersey Manufacturers Ins. Co., 2015 Law Division opinion following bench trial (Rova Farms claim on excess verdict dismissed, and no cause for action entered; insurer’s rejection of $10,000 offer of judgment and election to proceed to trial in limitation on lawsuit threshold case found to be in good faith in spite of ultimate judgment in excess of $300,000 liability policy).
  • Kieffer v. High Point Ins. Co., 422 N.J. Super. 38 (App. Div. 2011) (representing New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company) (dismissing for failure to state a cause of action state-wide class action litigation seeking to advance diminished value collision coverage claims against NJM).
  • Seabridge v. Discount Auto, Inc., 393 N.J. Super. 327 (App. Div. 2007) (amendment in personal auto policy, without separate notice to the policyholder, that inserted a step down clause in the UM/UIM section of the policy was valid and enforceable).
  • Pinto v. New Jersey Manufacturers Ins. Co., 183 N.J. 405 (2005) (as amicus curiae on behalf of the New Jersey Defense Association) (step down clause in commercial automobile insurance policy, which worked to preclude UM/UIM coverage to allegedly injured employee, was enforceable and valid on a statewide basis).
  • Dickson v. Selective Ins. Group, Inc., 363 N.J. Super. 344 (App. Div. 2003), certif. denied, 178 N.J. 453 (2004), and Merces v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co., 2007 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 452 (App. Div. 2007) (where a shareholder of a corporate insured was not personally listed on policy, he was not insured by that policy for a UM/UIM loss while not occupying a corporate-owned vehicle).
  • Vassiliu v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 178 N.J. 286 (2004) (In a landmark decision for New Jersey insurers, it was determined that a case involving the assertion of both wrongful death and survivorship actions did not expose more than one insurance limit on a split limits liability, UM or UIM policy).
  • Heumann v. Selective Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58488 (allegations of bad faith and punitive damages were inappropriate in a PIP case, given statutory right of successful PIP claimant to counsel fees and interest).
  • Tarasoff v New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company, 2011 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 426 (App. Div. 2011) (step down clause in automobile policy UIM endorsement applied to UIM insurance covering motorcycle policy purchased by that same insured for his motorcycle as “similar” insurance, thus precluding UIM claim once step down was calculated).
  • Strunk v M & A Trucking, 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1460 (App. Div. 2014) (policy covering non-truckers liability “bobtail” risk only was not triggered when tractor, while operating ‘bobtail,” was nevertheless engaged “in the business of” the company it was hauling for, as tractor was on its way to maintenance shop for return trip the next morning).

Additional case information is available on request.

*Every case is different. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 

The firm’s rate of success in multi-defendant litigated matters can be shown to match that of almost any other firm and is typically accomplished at a lower overall cost. Of the many trials that have gone to verdict, members of the firm have obtained a no cause for action in more than 90 percent of the cases.

Our Attorneys
Contact us

Quick Contact Form