.

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

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

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.

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

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. 

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.