[brief] Exclusion C.5 supports the important public policy aims of workplace safety.  Excluding such insurance coverage is also consistent with New Jersey’s policy of prohibiting coverage for punitive damages.  Insurance coverage for punitive damage awards is prohibited “because such a result offends public policy and frustrates the purposes of punitive damage awards,” namely the “deterrence of egregious misconduct and the punishment of the offender. ”  *Johnson & Johnson v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.*, 285 N.J. Super. 575, 583 (App. Div. 1995) (citing *Leimgruber v. Claridge Assocs.*, 73 N.J. 450, 454 (1977)).  Plaintiff’s argument invites rather than deters the employers’ intentional wrongs that are substantially certain to result in injury.  Plaintiff’s contention that Exclusion C.5 is not supported by and in fact violates public policy is further belied by the fact that [...] approved the revised exclusion.  [...]’s reasoning includes, as a secondary consideration, the public policy of keeping workers compensation premiums affordable for the many business enterprises that operate in New Jersey and provide employment for New Jersey residents.  The Workers Compensation Act vests the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance with the power to “promulgate such rules and regulations . . . as he deems necessary to effectuate the provisions of [the Workers Compensation Act].”  N.J.S.A 34:15-77.8.  “The principle that the insurance business is strongly affected with a public interest and therefore properly subject to comprehensive regulation in protecting the public welfare is long-settled and well-established.  To safeguard that public welfare, [...] has broad and comprehensive regulatory authority . . . over the business of insurance .  . . .  This regulatory authority extends to workers’ compensation insurance. ”  Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc. v. N.J. Dep’t of Banking & Ins., 472 N.J. Super. 26, 41-42 (App. Div. 2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).  “[I]n the field of insurance, the expertise and judgment of the [[...]] Commissioner may be given great weight. ”  Coalition for Quality Health Care v. N.J. Dep’t of Banking & Ins., 348 N.J. Super. 272, 301 (App. Div.) (quotation marks and citation omitted), certif. denied, 174 N.J. 194 (2002).  Courts have recognized that if the [...] Commissioner approves a policy form, then there is a presumption that the policy form does not contravene public policy.  See Jones v. Heymann, 127 N.J. Super. 542, 547 (App. Div. 1974) (presumption that Commissioner did not view a policy form to be against public policy where he “has not made any change in that endorsement nor withdrawn his approval thereof”); Smith v. Motor Club of Am. Ins. Co., 54 N.J. Super. 37 (Ch. Div.), aff’d, 56 N.J. Super. 203 (App. Div. 1959) (“[t]he Legislature, having vested the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance with authority to strike from policies any clauses he deems to be unfair or inequitable, and the Commissioner having taken no such action with respect to the clause in question, it must be presumed that he did not consider it unfair or inequitable and that it is not against public policy”).  Both because Exclusion C.5 enhances worker safety and because it controls the costs of workers’ compensation and employers’ liability insurance, it is consistent with the public policy of this State.  This Court should reject Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary.