A New York court has brought a halted insurance agency sale dispute back to life, ruling that the buyer’s fraud claims need more scrutiny before any deal can be thrown out.
The decision, issued on April 23, 2025, by the Appellate Division, Second Department, involves the 2018 planned sale of M.R. Korman Insurance. Veteran broker John Bures had negotiated to buy the agency from Marshal R. Korman. But before the agreement was signed, Marshal Korman passed away.
The deal didn’t fall through. Instead, it moved ahead with Korman’s daughter, Allison Korman, signing the agreement as executor of his estate.
Two years later, Bures and Central Insurance Agency, Inc. sued to cancel the deal. They claimed the contract falsely implied that Allison Korman was a licensed insurance broker and said they were misled into signing. They asked the court to rescind - or undo - the agreement, claiming fraud.
And before the case even got off the ground, they asked the court to rule in their favor without holding a trial.
In 2021, a Suffolk County judge agreed, and in early 2023, a final judgment rescinded the agreement.
But the appellate court has now reversed that decision. In its April 2025 ruling, the court said the plaintiffs hadn’t shown enough to justify canceling the contract at this early stage. Even though the agreement could be read to suggest Allison Korman was licensed, the buyers didn’t explain why that mattered—especially since she was acting as executor, not broker of record.
The court also said that key questions were left unanswered. Did the plaintiffs actually rely on that detail? If so, was it reasonable? Were there other alleged misstatements that need to be explored? Without answers, the court said it was premature to throw out the deal.
In short, the appeals court found the plaintiffs hadn’t met the legal bar to prove fraud as a matter of law and said the case needs to go through the normal fact-finding process. That means the contract is back in play, and the lawsuit will continue.
There were no insurance policy terms or coverage issues discussed in the ruling. The case focused strictly on the business side of an agency asset sale - and the risks that can arise when contracts are signed after a business owner’s death.
For insurance professionals - especially those involved in buying or selling agencies - it’s a useful reminder: even seemingly small details in deal paperwork can spark major legal questions, especially when estates or successors are involved.
