This article was originally published as an opinion piece by Michael J. Epstein, Esq. on Law.com on June 22, 2026.

The distinction between an insurance agent and an insurance broker sounds technical and boring right up until the moment a family discovers, after a catastrophic crash, that the coverage they thought they had is nowhere near enough.

Then it becomes very real.

New Jersey drivers routinely make some of the most important financial decisions of their lives in conversations that last less time than ordering lunch. Many do not fully understand the policies they are buying. More importantly, many do not understand who is actually advising them and whose interests that person represents.

That confusion matters because auto insurance has become vastly more complicated than most consumers realize.

Today’s policies involve a great deal of options: uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, personal injury protection limits, verbal or limitation on lawsuit threshold elections, liability caps, exclusions, and endorsements that can dramatically affect what happens after a serious collision. Most people are not equipped to navigate those choices alone. Naturally, they rely on the person sitting across from them or on the other end of the phone.

But consumers often use the terms “agent” and “broker” interchangeably, even though the legal and practical differences can be significant.

Generally speaking, an insurance broker is supposed to represent the consumer’s interests while shopping among carriers. A captive insurance agent, by contrast, may represent only one insurance company and may primarily function as a salesperson for that carrier’s products. Independent agents occupy yet another middle ground. To consumers, however, these distinctions are often invisible.

What many drivers hear is simple: “You’re covered.”

What they often do not hear is what they gave up.

That becomes painfully clear in cases involving uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage, commonly referred to as UM/UIM coverage. Many New Jersey drivers carry limits that would barely scratch the surface of a catastrophic injury claim. Some drivers unknowingly carry liability limits that could expose personal assets after a serious accident. Others elect the limitation on lawsuit threshold without fully understanding how difficult it may later become to recover damages for pain and suffering.

The problem is not necessarily deception. In many situations, it is something more systemic: speed, complexity, consumer misunderstanding, and a sales process that frequently prioritizes affordability over informed decision-making.

Everyone wants cheaper premiums. That is understandable. But consumers cannot make informed choices if they do not fully understand the tradeoffs. And the tradeoffs can be enormous.

A driver may save a few hundred dollars a year by selecting reduced coverage options, only to discover years later that a life-changing injury leaves them facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in uncovered losses. By then, the conversation that led to the policy purchase is long over, memories are unclear, and the paperwork is dense enough to overwhelm almost anyone.

New Jersey lawmakers should pay closer attention to this growing disconnect between what consumers believe they are purchasing and what many policies actually provide.

At a minimum, the legislature should consider stronger disclosure requirements during the auto insurance purchasing process. Consumers should receive plain-language explanations regarding UM/UIM coverage, limitation on lawsuit threshold consequences, and the practical risks associated with low liability limits. Those explanations should not be buried in fine print that few people read and even fewer fully understand.

The state could also consider standardized acknowledgment forms written in straightforward language rather than industry terminology that often obscures more than it clarifies.

None of this would prevent consumers from choosing lower-cost policies. Nor should it. Affordability matters. But informed consent matters too.

The current system often operates on assumptions that no longer match reality. Insurance products have grown increasingly sophisticated while many consumers remain convinced they are simply buying “full coverage,” a phrase that itself has little fixed legal meaning.

That misunderstanding surfaces every day in personal injury litigation across New Jersey. Families dealing with catastrophic injuries frequently learn too late that the coverage they believed would protect them is inadequate. Sometimes the at-fault driver carried minimal insurance. Sometimes the injured family’s own policy contains limitations they never fully appreciated.

Sometimes both are true.

By then, there are no easy fixes.

The broader issue here is trust.

Consumers generally believe the person selling them insurance is guiding them through a complex financial and legal decision. In many cases, that trust is well placed. Plenty of insurance professionals take the responsibility seriously and work hard to educate clients properly.

But the system itself still leaves too much room for confusion.

That confusion carries real consequences not only for injured drivers and their families, but also for the courts now handling increasingly complicated coverage disputes that often stem from decisions consumers barely understood when they made them.

New Jersey has long required disclosures in areas where consumers face significant financial risk. Mortgage lending, securities, and medical consent all operate under disclosure frameworks designed to ensure people understand major consequences before agreeing to them.

Auto insurance deserves the same level of seriousness. 

Because after a devastating crash, nobody wants to hear that they technically agreed to something they never truly understood. 

Michael J. Epstein, a Harvard Law School graduate, is a trial lawyer and managing partner of The Epstein Law Firm, P.A., a law firm based in New Jersey.