What happened: A New York court dismissed a consumer protection claim against a broker accused of botching a racing yacht’s coverage and faking a claim filing.
Who’s involved: USMMA Sailing Foundation and Hilb Group of New York, an insurance broker.
What’s at stake: The foundation’s right to attorneys’ fees and a consumer protection claim under GBL § 349 - both now dismissed.
Why it matters: A one-off broker dispute with a single client is unlikely to trigger consumer protection exposure, even when the alleged conduct includes concealment and misrepresentation.
Where it stands: Consumer protection claim and attorneys’ fees dismissed on appeal; negligence and breach of contract claims remain before the trial court.
A New York broker allegedly told a sailing foundation it had filed a yacht damage claim with the insurer. It hadn’t.
That accusation sits at the center of a lawsuit the USMMA Sailing Foundation brought against Hilb Group of New York over the insurance on its racing yacht. But the Appellate Division, Second Department, just handed the broker a partial win - tossing the foundation’s consumer protection claim and its bid for attorneys’ fees.
The foundation’s complaint laid out a string of alleged failures. Hilb, it said, did not procure the full scope of coverage requested for the racing yacht. Worse, it alleged, Hilb concealed that broader coverage was available at a higher premium.
Then came the damage.
When the yacht was damaged, the foundation alleged, Hilb failed to tender the claim to the insurer - and hid that fact. According to the complaint, the broker went further: it “fraudulently informed” the foundation that the claim had been submitted.
The foundation sued for negligence, breach of contract, and violations of General Business Law § 349, New York’s consumer protection statute. That third claim mattered because it opened the door to attorneys’ fees.
The broker moved to dismiss the consumer protection claim. The lower court in Nassau County denied the motion. Hilb appealed.
The appellate panel reversed unanimously on October 7, 2026. GBL § 349, the court held, requires conduct with “a broad impact on consumers at large.” The foundation’s allegations described a private contract dispute over one yacht’s coverage and one unfiled claim - unique to these parties, not the kind of conduct the statute targets.
With the consumer protection claim gone, the attorneys’ fees claim fell with it. The foundation’s fee claim rested entirely on GBL § 349. No statute, no fees.
The ruling narrows the case but does not end it. The negligence and breach of contract claims were not part of this appeal and remain before the trial court. What Hilb allegedly did - or didn’t do - with the yacht’s coverage and the unfiled claim will still be tested.
For brokers, the decision marks a boundary: a one-off procurement and claims-handling dispute with a single client is unlikely to trigger consumer protection exposure, even when the alleged conduct includes concealment and misrepresentation.
The allegations have not been proved, and no court has ruled on the merits of the remaining claims.
