.

Melanie J. Foreman

Attorney Hiring Chair

MJForeman@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Melanie J. Foreman

As the firm’s Attorney Hiring Chair, Melanie is responsible for recruiting and hiring legal talent across the firm’s nineteen offices and four legal departments.

Melanie is a shareholder in the Casualty Department, where she defends insured and self-insured entities against claims in state and federal court. She focuses her practice on litigation related to product liability, premises and municipal liability, and commercial transportation. Melanie has served as lead trial counsel and as second chair in multiple civil litigations. Melanie is also responsible for taking depositions, making oral arguments before the Court, and drafting pleadings and motions, having successfully obtained final adjudication via the summary judgment phase.

Prior to joining the firm, Melanie served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Annette M. Rizzo in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas. During her tenure, Melanie drafted judicial opinions and conducted pre-trial conferences by mediating between parties to settle cases and ensure cases were trial-ready.

Melanie is heavily involved in the Philadelphia legal community. She is a Board member of Community Legal Services (CLS) and Philadelphia Legal Assistance (PLA), and a Trustee of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation.  She co-chairs CLS’s Leadership Council and Board Nominations Committee. Melanie is the Founder and Chair of Justice Rising, a young professionals organization associated with CLS that is dedicated to access to justice for all. She is a former member of the Board of Governors of the Philadelphia Bar Association, having served as an officer.  She is a Past President of the Temple American Inn of Court.

Melanie is a two-time graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, earning her Bachelor of Arts in 2008 summa cum laude and her juris doctor in 2013. She is barred in Pennsylvania and New York.

    • University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (J.D., 2013)
    • University of Pennsylvania (B.A., summa cum laude, 2008)
    • New York, 2014
    • Pennsylvania, 2014
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2016
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2024
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants; Transportation Law (2021-2025)
    • Craig M. Perry Service Award, Philadelphia Bar Association (2019)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2023-2024)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2026)
    • Community Legal Services, Board Member; Co-Chair, Leadership Council; Co-Chair, Board Development Committee
    • Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Hearing Committee Member
    • Impact100 Philadelphia, Young Philanthropist, 2018-2023
    • Justice Rising Advocates, Community Legal Services, Founding Chair, 2017
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association, Assistant Secretary, 2024-2025; Board of Governors, 2020-2023; Co-Chair, Annual Bench Bar Conference, 2023
    • Philadelphia Legal Assistance, Board Member
    • Philadelphia Legal Assistance, Co-Host, 25th Anniversary Jubilee for Justice
    • Temple American Inn of Court, President, 2023-2024; Vice President, 2022-2023; Treasurer, 2020-2022; Inn Administrator, 2018-2020 
    • University of Pennsylvania Alumni Interviewing Co-Chair, Philadelphia Region, 2018-2025
    • Negligence 101 - A Pennsylvania and Florida Legal Overview, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, December 15, 2020
    • Community Legal Services Leadership Council
    • Justice Rising, Founder and Chair, Philadelphia, PA
    • Successfully obtained a defense verdict for a public transportation system in a Wrongful Death and Survival case in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The case involved the death of a pedestrian, struck by a bus, with the plaintiff, his father, disputing the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's suicide ruling. The defense presented a forensic psychiatrist's testimony confirming the deceased’s high suicide risk. Although the transportation system was found 40% negligent, the decedent's 60% negligence barred recovery of damages. The claim was further limited by statutory caps applicable to Commonwealth entities.
    • Successfully obtained summary judgment in an alleged sex abuse case pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff, a minor, alleged that he was abused by an unidentified assailant while at a summer camp in 2002.  In granting the motion and dismissing the lawsuit, the judge himself noted that it is rare for the court to enter summary judgment in cases of this nature. 

Results

View all

Successfully Defended SEPTA in a Wrongful Death and Survival Case

We successfully defended the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) in a wrongful death and survival case in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The case involved the death of a pedestrian, Vincent Boykin, struck by a SEPTA bus, with the plaintiff, his father, disputing the Philadelphia Medical Examiner’s suicide ruling. The defense presented a forensic psychiatrist’s testimony confirming Mr. Boykin’s high suicide risk. Although SEPTA was found 40% negligent, the decedent’s 60% negligence barred recovery of damages.   

Defense Verdict for Public Transportation System in Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas

We obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a public transportation system in a Wrongful Death and Survival case in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The case involved the death of a  pedestrian, struck by a bus, with the plaintiff, his father, disputing the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's suicide ruling. The defense presented a forensic psychiatrist's testimony confirming the deceased’s high suicide risk. Although the transportation system was found 40% negligent, the decedent's 60% negligence barred recovery of damages. The claim was further limited by statutory caps applicable to Commonwealth entities.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

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. 

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

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. 

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

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.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

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

Thought Leadership

State of Insurance: Q2 Notes From Pennsylvania