[brief] Under \textit{Shaw}, Defendants are not Learned Professionals Entitled to Immunity From the CFA.}  The \textit{Shaw} Court reasoned that the learned professional doctrine “should be narrowly construed to include only those professions who have historically been recognized as ‘learned’ based on the requirements of extensive learning or erudition. ”  460 N.J. Super. at 618-19 (emphasis added).  The categories of professions historically recognized as learned are limited to legal, medical, and theological.  *Id.* at 611 (citing *Plaza Bottle Shop, Inc. v. Al Torstrick Ins. Agency*, 712 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986)).  Defendants point to the Affidavit of Merit Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26 to -29, the credentials of Plaintiff’s proposed expert witness, the licensing and educational standards for insurance producers, and the fact that Plaintiff has referred to Defendants as “professionals” or “experts” as evidence that insurance producers qualify for exemption from liability under the CFA.  In their various arguments regarding the classification of insurance producers, Defendants emphasize the skills, licensing, and educational requirements common to insurance producers, as well as the terms used to describe Defendants, seemingly to imply that insurance producers belong in the “learned professional category. ”  However, none of these factors change the fact that insurance producers are not historically “learned professionals” as defined by *Shaw*.  The requirements of the Affidavit of Merit Statute are not instructive as to whether a member of a certain profession is shielded from liability under the CFA.  That Plaintiff complied with the Affidavit of Merit Statute in providing an Affidavit of Merit in connection with this case is entirely irrelevant to an analysis of whether or not insurance producers are learned professionals entitled to exemption from liability under the CFA, a wholly different statute.  Equally irrelevant is any assertion that insurance producers, by virtue of holding certain licenses or having certain educational backgrounds, are entitled to exemption from liability under the CFA.  The existence of a licensing framework alone is insufficient to place insurance producers into the category of “learned professionals” as described by Shaw.  Insurance producers are essentially salespeople, and, while not diminishing the profession, there are no educational prerequisites to obtain such a position.  Moreover, any licensing requirements of insurance producers are more analogous to those required to become a licensed driver than they are to the requirements that learned professionals such as doctors and lawyers must satisfy.  For example, drivers and insurance producers both must take a written test and must not violate the rules of the road or the rules of insurance sales.  Of course, to obtain a driver’s license one must also pass a driving test.  It appears no such actual field test is required to obtain an insurance producers license.  Defendants are asking this Court to place insurance producers in the same category as doctors and lawyers, despite the fact that the educational and licensing requirements simply do not align.  Finally, Defendants’ conflation of terms like “professional” and “expert”—general terms with no legal weight—with the term of art “learned professional”—which has an unambiguous legal definition that insurance producers like Defendants do not meet—is creative and desperate at the same time and is ultimately wholly unpersuasive and lacks any legal support.  *Shaw* was clear that the learned professional exemption should only apply to those occupations which were historically considered “learned,” and insurance producers—who may be considered “professionals” in the general sense of the word—do not fall into any of the historically recognized categories.