.

Jason is a highly accomplished defense attorney with more than 20 years of experience handling complex casualty litigation. 

Throughout his career, Jason has defended hundreds of premises liability, sports and entertainment, retail, dram shop, motor vehicle and product liability matters, trying several cases to verdict. Additionally, he has handled several mold exposure claims involving subcontractors, school districts and a regional hospital. 

He has also represented Fortune 500 companies and a considerable number of service providers in sports and entertainment, retail, corrections, healthcare, facilities, restaurant and bar industries. 

In addition to his seasoned trial advocacy skills, he regularly uses focused discovery and technology to effectively and creatively represent his clients in a cost-efficient manner.  He was also involved in the MDL litigation for a distributor of latex products. Jason regularly serves as a court-appointed arbitrator in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County and United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He also serves as a judge pro tem in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Civil litigants often hire Jason to serve as a private arbitrator in their matters.  

Among his numerous professional affiliations, Jason is the Past President and Board Member of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute (PDI), a 400-member organization comprised of lawyers, insurance company executives, self-insurers, and independent adjusters who are focused on promoting the interests of the civil litigation defense bar. In July 2020 he received the PDI's "Defense Attorney of the Year" Award for his statewide efforts in conjunction with the plaintiff’s bar to reopen Pennsylvania courts and law offices during the Covid-19 pandemic. He also has received the Defense Research Institute’s Exceptional Performance Citation for 2019-2020. He has participated extensively as a panelist or moderator for various Continuing Legal Education programs. He most recently presented to the Northampton County Bar Association on the topic of Representing Your Client at an Online/Virtual Mediation.  

Jason was also an appointed member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Covid-19 Task Force. As one of the civil defense bar representatives, he helped developed processes, technologies and rules recommendations to enable the legal system to continue operations under crisis conditions. 

He now serves on the DRI Center for Law and Public Policy task force dedicated to monitoring legislative and rulemaking developments at the state level. 

Devoted to community service, Jason is President of Lower Saucon Township Council. His community service on Township Council includes liaison to Landfill, Parks & Recreation, Municipal Police Contract and Active Transportation Committees. He formerly served for ten years as the Chairman of the Lower Saucon Township Zoning Hearing Board, deciding substantive and procedural challenges to the validity of land use ordinances.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 1999)
    • Bucknell University (B.S.B.A., 1994)
    • New Jersey, 2000
    • Pennsylvania, 2000
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2000
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 2000
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2000
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2000
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 2018
    • Supreme Court of the United States, 2023
    • Obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a civil jury trial in Northampton County, Pa. under COVID restrictions. In this premises liability case, the plaintiff claimed he had slipped on snow and ice on a sidewalk and suffered a comminuted tri-malleolar fracture, requiring two surgeries. The demand was $130K and Jason’s best offer was $75K. At trial, Jason demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to establish that the accident occurred on the property his client maintained as power-of-attorney and that his client breached any limited duty owed to a licensee. The socially-distanced jury returned its verdict in an hour. 
    • Obtained summary judgment for a hospital operating room management consulting company for premises liability claims resulting in alleged traumatic brain injury where demand was $1.9 million.
    • Obtained defense verdict for a bowling alley for premises liability claims resulting in alleged brachial plexus injury where demand was $250,000.
    • Obtained a summary judgment in a Monroe County apartment complex slip and fall on snow and ice case.  The Court determined that the evidence adduced by plaintiff did not meet the requirements for the Hills and Ridges Doctrine (i.e. that snow and ice had accumulated on the ground in ridges or elevations of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel and constitute a danger to pedestrians). The Court also found that there was no proof of a dangerous condition or notice of the condition to establish a breach of duty.  The Court did not reach the merits of our assumption of risk arguments.
    • Obtained summary judgment for a correctional services food services provider for toxic tort claims of correctional officers alleging exposure to mold in the prison where demand was in excess of $1 million.
    • Successfully and economically resolved a complex premises liability case at an air cargo distribution hub through creative use of meteorology experts and discovery.
    • Successfully and economically resolved a complex industrial shelving unit collapse case resulting in catastrophic head injury through creative use of biomechanical and engineering experts.
    • Successfully and economically resolved a medical product liability case involving a catheter sheath through effective use of engineering and design experts.
    • Successfully and economically resolved a products liability case involving a motorized yard truck through effective use of engineering and human factors experts.
    • Obtained summary judgment for a tree removal service based on plaintiff's failure to file action within statute of limitations.
    • Obtained defense verdict at trial in a low speed motor vehicle accident through effective use of photographs, damages estimates and medical experts.
    • Successfully obtained dismissal of the distributor of an allegedly defective log splitter.
    • Successfully defended construction liability case where the demand was $10 million by showing that the action of my client was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries.
    • Board of Governors of Bowie State University’s Maguire Academy for Risk Management and Insurance (2025)
    • Top Lawyers of the Lehigh Valley, Litigation (2025)
    • 2020 Pennsylvania Trailblazer, The Legal Intelligencer
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association (PBA) COVID-19 Task Force
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute (PDI), Defense Attorney of the Year, 2020
    • Defense Resource Institute - Exceptional Performance Citation 2019-2020
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star (2007-2008)
    • American Bar Association
    • Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM)
    • Defense Research Institute
    • Lehigh County Bar Association
    • Lower Saucon Township Zoning Hearing Board
    • Northampton County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute, (PDI) Co-chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee 2021; President 2019; Executive Vice President 2017-2018; Treasurer 2016-2017; Secretary 2015-2016; Board of Directors 2011-Present
    • Temple American Inn of Court, 2000-2001
    • Lower Saucon Township Council, 2019 to present
    • Defense Resource Institute, State Representative for Pennsylvania
    • DRI Center for Law and Public Policy, State Legislation and Rules Task Force
    • Project Litigate – Panel Discussion, 2024 Pennsylvania Defense Institute (PDI) Annual Conference, Bedford Springs, PA, July 12, 2024
    • Civil Litigation State of Affairs, The Impact of COVID-19 in New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida & What’s Next – Moderator, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, June 2021
    • Civil Litigation Updates in COVID-19 Litigation – Where Do We Stand One Year Later? Marshall Dennehey Webinar, May 2021
    • How to Represent Your Client in Virtual Mediation, webinar presented by Northampton County Bar Association, May 21, 2020
    • An Overview of Pennsylvania Law and Effective Litigation Management Strategies, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, June 2015
    • An Overview of Pennsylvania Automobile Liability, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, April 2015
    • Issues and Defenses in Pennsylvania Premises Liability Cases, American National Red Cross' Dedicated Liability Unit, July 2011
    • Pennsylvania Liability Seminar, Crawford & Company
    • Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Liability Seminar, Laidlaw Transit, Inc.
    • Persuasion, Civility and How Jurors Make Decisions, Panelist and moderator, Pennsylvania Defense Institute North Region Ethics CLE Program
    • Advanced General Liability Seminar, organizer and moderator, PDI East with federal and state judges
    • “Social Media: The Discoverable Window to the Trust,” LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, September 21, 2011, and Defense Digest, Vol. 17, No. 3, September 2011

Results

View all

Unanimous Defense Verdict in Premises Liability Civil Jury Trial Under COVID Restrictions

We obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a civil jury trial in Northampton County, Pa. under COVID restrictions. In this premises liability case, the plaintiff claimed he had slipped on snow and ice on a sidewalk and suffered a comminuted tri-malleolar fracture, requiring two surgeries. At trial, Jason demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to establish that the accident occurred on the property his client maintained as power-of-attorney, or that his client breached any limited duty owed to a licensee. The socially-distanced jury returned its verdict in favor of the defense in one hour.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

State of Insurance: Q2 Notes From Pennsylvania

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Thought Leadership

The Best Defense is Already in the File: Documentation in Civil Rights Litigation

Thought Leadership

Ohio Supreme Court Holds That a Binding Appraisal Award May Not Be Set Aside Absent Specific Evidence of Manifest Mistake or Fraud

On July 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a rare opinion on the binding effect of an appraisal award in a property insurance policy.  The Court in One Church held: A binding appraisal award will not be set aside unless an error is so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—To plead a claim of mistake with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B), facts alleged in a complaint must constitute the elements of mistake—Allegation that additional, hidden damage was discovered after appraisal award failed to state a claim of mistake that could justify setting aside binding appraisal.  The case arose out of a claim brought by One Church against its insurer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company for roof damage from a storm. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the parties agreed to submit the matter to appraisal. The two appraisers inspected the building, and both appraisers agreed that the damages were $313,271.98. The insurer paid the agreed appraised amount.  Thereafter, the insured submitted a claim for an additional $206,663.09 in damages. The insured argued that these additional damages were not discovered until after the repairs began, and that they should be permitted to submit an additional claim, even though there had already been a binding appraisal of damages. The insurer refused to pay the additional damages, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  In the trial court, the insurer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the binding appraisal award barred any further claims. The insured took the position that additional hidden damages could not be discovered until after the repairs began, and therefore there was a mutual mistake. The trial court dismissed the case on the insurer’s motion, because there was no “evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake”. The Court of Appeals agreed that appraisal awards are generally binding, but noted that an appraisal award can be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the insured had pled mistake with sufficient particularity. The insurer appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court decision dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court found that since the insured had already demanded appraisal, and the appraisal award was binding, “something more than error of judgement, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake” must be pled with particularity, and proven for the insured to override the appraisal award. Since the complaint did not allege fraud or manifest mistake with sufficient particularity, something more than a mere error of judgment, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim.  The complaint in this case did not challenge the appraisal award. It pled that additional damages were discovered that were not apparent when the appraisal was done. It did not specify “who discovered the damages, how they were discovered, where they were found, why they were previously hidden, or why they rise to the level of a manifest mistake that the “appraiser would have corrected...had it been called to his attention”. Id at ¶22 citing Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases deciding the effect of appraisal awards are unusual. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in One Church relies primarily on 19th century case law for its conclusion. This emphasizes the fact that there is minimal case law deciding the effect of binding appraisal clauses in property insurance policies, and makes this case all the more significant. A lengthy dissent was written by Justice Fisher, who would have affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding the case for a decision on the merits. Of course, the decision works both ways, and an insurer dissatisfied with a binding appraisal award will likewise be without further recourse absent evidence of corruption, fraud, misfeasance, or manifest mistake, which must be pled with particularity. To constitute manifest mistake, “the mistake must be of such character that the arbitrator or appraiser would have corrected it had it been called to his attention.”  Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970).  The majority opinion does not specifically identify what would have been sufficient to plead mistake with particularity, or if the insured could have amended the complaint to overcome the deficiencies. The dissent argues that this was not really a case alleging mistake, but rather a question of contract interpretation. The insured did not challenge the appraisal, but argued that the hidden damage was not part of the appraisal, and the appraisal only covered the known damages.  However, this argument did not carry the day with the majority.  *Thomas F. Glassman, a shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s Cincinnati office, filed a brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, in support of the insurer’s position.

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent