A New Jersey apartment owner says its broker's math left it $1.3 million short after a fire.
The Mansions Urban Renewal Associates sued Alliant Insurance Services in federal court on July 10, 2026, alleging professional malpractice over how the brokerage valued its low-income housing complex in Pine Hill, New Jersey. The property runs to more than twenty individual buildings, according to the complaint.
Alliant had managed the property's insurance since 2017, the filing says. For years the buildings shared a single blanket limit that treated them as one - "without regard to each building's individual replacement cost," the complaint states.
That setup changed in August 2023. The complaint says Alliant replaced the blanket coverage with two policies: a primary policy from Landmark American Insurance Company covering the first $5 million in damage, and an excess policy from Seneca Specialty Insurance Company covering the buildings collectively for $39,376,774 above that. The Seneca policy "Followed form of the Landmark Policy," the filing states.
The wrinkle, according to the complaint, was in the new Landmark policy. An endorsement "limited the coverage for any one building to the value listed for that building on the Statement of Values filed by Alliant with Landmark." Put simply, each building was capped at the value Alliant gave it - not the blanket total. So the per-building number now decided how much cover each building had. Alliant pegged replacement cost at $111.04 per square foot, the filing says.
Then, on or about November 12, 2024, fire struck. Building 1100 took roughly $3,012,432 in damage, the complaint says, but was insured for only $1,724,214. Landmark paid its $1.7 million limit, leaving the owner short by $1,288,218.
After the shortfall, the complaint says, Alliant reworked its numbers and put replacement cost at $194 per square foot, up from its original $111.04. The owner authorized the higher value, and in February 2025 Landmark raised the coverage for an extra $153,733 premium. The owner alleges Alliant never explained how it reached either number.
The suit brings one count of professional malpractice and negligence, alleging Alliant "breached the duties owed to Plaintiff by failing to act with reasonable skill and diligence as an insurance broker." The owner is seeking at least $1,288,218 plus interest and costs.
For brokers and their E&O carriers, the case is a clean study in a familiar risk: who owns the replacement-cost number, and how a per-building endorsement can turn one valuation error into an uncovered loss.
The allegations have not been tested in court, and no judge has ruled on the claims.
