Whether the Third Circuit Court of Appeals improperly stated the law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the Third Circuit Court of Appeals improperly stated the law when it read the heightened pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) for notification of fraudulent conduct as applying to pleading the actual monetary value of the resulting damages and can that pleading burden be reconciled with: (1) the conflicting ruling of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Grubbs v. . Kanneganti; and (2) the United States Supreme | Court’s decision in Story v Parchment keeping the burden of the uncertainty of damages on the Defendant. 2. Whether a regulation focal to Plaintiff's case, plead factually in the complaint and fully briefed before both the District Court and Appellate Court, can be ignored on appeal because there was no citation to that regulation in the complaint, given the recent Supreme Court’s pleading standards in Skinner v. Switzer, 3. Whether the Court of Appeals improperly stated the law in denying the Plaintiff a private right of action, recognized by the highest courts in New Jersey, because the text of N.J.A.C. 11:122.5(b)(2) only denies an insured the right to enforce those penalties “set forth in this subsection” 4. Whether the monetary value attributed to damages for carrying risk, should be extended as a remedy to consumers in insurance contracts when : ii they are forced to carry risk through a period of time due to fraud or breach of contract by their insurance company(s). 5. Whether the Court of Appeals violated reviewing standards of Byers v. Intuit, Inc by not viewing the facts ina light most favorable to the Plaintiff after it ignored the regulation focal to ; Plaintiff complaint (Question 1 above) during a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 6. Whether the denial of the measuring Plaintiffs damages by the risk he was forced to carry for a period of time due to the breach and/or fraud of the Defendant insurance companies is a ; violation of Plaintiff's rights of Substantive Due Process. 7. Whether the Defendant(s) insurance companies schemed to illegally change the Plaintiffs coverage mid-term by using, excessive, ; ambiguous, and illegal communication rendering them liable for common law torts, breach of contract and under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.