Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

Automobile Liability

Serving our clients' needs in the automobile field is one of the oldest practice areas at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. Our attorneys have a wide range of experience in this dynamic field, and they assist our clients in remaining current with applicable case law updates. From the inception of our firm, we have serviced the insurance industry by both representing its insureds in third party cases as well as the carriers directly in first party and PIP matters.

Specifically, in each of our firm's offices throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Florida and New York, our automobile liability defense attorneys are adept at representing insureds in third party work, and carriers in UM/UIM and PIP work.

Robert E. Smith, Esq. of our Scranton, Pennsylvania office heads our Pennsylvania UM/UIM subsection and practices solely in this field. Mr. Smith is not only knowledgeable about UM/UIM law, he also is intimately familiar with the protocols and nuances of each county's local procedures and practices, factors that can have a substantial impact on the final result of a claim. 

In addition, the Automobile Liability Practice Group works closely with members of the firm's Coverage/Bad Faith, Fraud and Warranty Practice Groups as these three areas have a substantial amount of overlap. James H. Cole, Esq. of our Doylestown, Pennsylvania office heads our Special Investigation Group and is a valuable resource for our attorneys handling PIP, third party and UM/UIM claims. 

The Automobile Liability Practice Group also is well experienced and established in third party auto liability cases, including the specific nuances with limited insurance policies and joint and several liability. James Hilly, Esq. of our Philadelphia office, heads our Trucking and Transportation Group and has focused his practice in the representation of self-insured and insurers in complex tort and insurance coverage litigation involving various common carriers and private transportation fleets, such as interstate trucking, railroads, waste haulers, taxicabs, shuttle and bus operators, rental vehicle fleets, Para transit and ambulance services. 

We are aware of today's focus on securing sound legal services at reasonable fees. Our firm has grown because of our sensitivity in this area. Our liability defense trial lawyers take a practical, result-oriented approach to the cases which they are entrusted.  Cases are assigned to the firm's more senior attorneys, who, in turn, oversee tasks completed by their team of younger associates and paralegals. The firm is able to offer competitive rates through this task-appropriate delegation. Our attorneys are keenly aware that these types of matters require responsiveness to the claims professionals, as well as consistent file updating as the matters progress in their respective forums. 

Since there are areas in which some automobile litigation can be streamlined, we are also willing to discuss, develop and implement alternative billing formats wherever possible. We would be pleased to work with you in the handling of your automobile liability matters.
 
Our defense attorneys frequently give presentations and conduct training seminars for our automobile clients as case law is updated or when a client has the need to refresh their employees on the current areas of the automobile law. We can conduct these seminars at your location or at a mutually convenient location.

The Automobile Liability Practice Group of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin serves clients in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville, Ft. Lauderdale and communities throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Florida and New York.

Pages

May 20, 2008
Attorneys obtained a defense verdict in an automobile negligence trial. Plaintiff alleged that as a result of the motor vehicle accident, she sustained a lumbar radiculopathy and a recurrent left knee meniscal tear which would require future surgery...
May 20, 2008
Attorney secured a defense verdict in a case where a bicyclist claimed to have been struck by defendant's car. Defendant denied striking plaintiff, who sought damages for contusion injuries to his left leg and disc injuries to his lumbar spine....
May 5, 2008
Attorney obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a 76 year old woman who rear-ended the plaintiff, who was 8 months pregnant, while traveling on an interstate. The defendant contended that the plaintiff stopped suddenly for a dog on the side of the...
Apr 28, 2008
Attorney obtained a defense verdict after a three day trial in a case where a pedestrian, a sixty-five year old plaintiff, sustained significant injuries after being knocked down. While damages were not an issue, liability was highly contested and...
Apr 28, 2008
Attorney obtained a defense verdict in a case in which plaintiff alleged that she sustained an impingement of the right shoulder, for which she underwent arthroscopic surgery, in a rear end automobile accident. The jury deliberated for less than an...
Apr 17, 2008
Attorney obtained a defense verdict in an automobile negligence matter. Plaintiff alleged bulging discs, right wrist sprain, bilateral shoulder strain/sprain, cervical and dorsal strain/sprain. Liability was stipulated, and at issue was only...
Apr 17, 2008
Attorney obtained a defense verdict for his client after a two day trial and two hours of jury deliberation. The defendant was a driver who went left-of-center as a result of his reaction to a sudden emergency and struck the plaintiff head-on ....
Mar 17, 2008
Attorney obtained a defense verdict at trial. Plaintiff had sought coverage under the UIM portion of his motorcycle policy, claiming he had met the verbal threshold because his disc bulges and hairline fracture of the sternum were sufficient as a...
Jan 29, 2008
Attorney obtained defense verdicts in two cases where pedestrians were hit by automobiles. In both cases, Plaintiffs' counsel went to their underinsured motorist coverage first and received policy limits. The first pedestrian was hit on a highway...

Pages

Pages

Law Alerts January 1, 2012
Text messages admitted into evidence by the trial court constitute inadmissible hearsay. Authentication of electronic communications requires circumstantial evidence that tends to corroborate the identity of the sender. In this case, appellant Amy..., Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012
Law Alerts January 1, 2012
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that the state does not need to present expert testimony in DUI cases where the defendant was under the influence of a prescription drug. Here, the defendant-driver had submitted blood revealing Valium and..., Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012
Law Alerts January 1, 2012
The plaintiffs' complaint, which arose out of a multi-vehicle chain reaction automobile accident, was inadequate where it failed to specify the order in which the vehicles involved in the accident were positioned and whether the vehicles were..., Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012
Law Alerts January 1, 2012
The Pennsylvania Senate recently and overwhelmingly approved legislation that prohibits motorists from sending, receiving or reading text messages while driving. A day after the measure passed in the House, senators voted, 45-5, to send it to..., Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012
Law Alerts January 1, 2012
A chiropractor was entitled to recover no fault benefits from an insurer for chiropractic services provided to an insured because the chiropractic manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) performed was not prohibited by the Education Law §6551(1)...., Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012
Law Alerts October 1, 2011
A Lehigh County judge has thrown out the city's ordinance that banned using a cellular phone while operating a vehicle, saying it was pre-empted by state law. Allentown's Ordinance 14782 was passed and signed into law in March 2010. Lehigh County..., Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2011
Law Alerts October 1, 2011
As in a suit for personal injury, a plaintiff seeking uninsured motorist coverage must demonstrate that his or her medical expenses are reasonable and necessary. The insurer had retained an expert to testify to the reasonableness of the charges for..., Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2011
Law Alerts October 1, 2011
The plaintiff filed a personal injury action, which was transferred upon the defendant's motion to Suffolk County based upon improper venue. CPLR 503(a). The plaintiff later filed a second action in Queens County and then sought to consolidate the..., Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2011
Law Alerts October 1, 2011
A no-fault insurer, GEICO, as subrogee for its insured, filed an action against the defendants, the state and its employee, to recover first party benefits paid as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred between the employee and the..., Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2011
Law Alerts July 1, 2011
The Superior Court overturned a lower court's ruling granting a motion to dismiss where a party had not been timely served with the motion. The court noted that while Rule 440 allows service of legal papers other than original process to be served..., Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2011

Pages

Chair

Diane Magram
Chair, Automobile Liability Practice Group
(856) 414-6018
dxmagram@mdwcg.com

Co-Chair

Howard P. Dwoskin
Assistant Director, Casualty Department
(215) 575-2664
hpdwoskin@mdwcg.com

Related Practice Areas

Please read the following disclaimer:

Thank you for your interest in our firm. The information contained on this Website contains statements, videos and other content about the type and quality of services offered by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, as well as past results and testimonials about the firm. This information has not been reviewed nor approved by the Florida Bar.

  • The facts and circumstances of your case may differ from the matters in which results and/or testimonials have been provided.
  • All results of cases handled by the firm are not provided and not all clients have given testimonials.
  • The results and testimonials provided are not necessarily representative of results obtained by any individual attorney or by the firm nor of the experience of all clients or others with the firm. Every case is different, and each client's case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits.


Please acknowledge that you have read the above disclaimer by clicking on one of the two links below.

YES I have read and understand the above statements. I am interested in learning more about Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. NO I do not want to view the information.

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."