.

Adam is a member of the firm's Architectural, Engineering & Construction Defect Litigation Practice Group. He concentrates his practice in complex construction defect matters, which include the defense of contractors, architects, engineers, surveyors and other professionals. He also defends claims of bodily injury, property damage, delay damages and other claims related to the construction industry.

In complex multiparty litigation, Adam has developed significant experience. He has successfully represented clients in matters involving wrongful death, school construction defects, condominium construction defects, public entity construction projects, and geotechnical engineering, including inaccurate surveying claims, improper dynamic compaction claims, and various other claims of deviations from architectural and engineering standards of care.

Adam earned his Bachelor of Arts Degree from Stockton State College and his juris doctor from The Thomas M. Cooley Law School. 

    • Cooley Law School (J.D., 1996)
    • Stockton University (B.A., 1990)
    • New Jersey, 1997
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey
    • Pennsylvania, 1996
    • Successfully defended client through a two and a half month trial, with a no cause of action verdict against a products defect claim which allegedly resulted in burns to over 58% of plaintiff's body.  The case involved claims against a major U.S. car manufacturer as well as an internationally recognized automotive organization.  On the eve of closing arguments, the other parties settled without notice to Adam or his client.  The last demand on Adam’s client was for tender of its $10 Million Policy.
    • Obtained a jury verdict on behalf of insurer in favor of carrier on an insurance fraud claim.  Plaintiff in this matter fraudulently accepted payment from both a tortfeasor’s automotive carrier and his own carrier, effectively “double-dipping” to receive duplicative recoveries.  Adam successfully obtained a verdict recovering for the carrier its payment with treble damages for the defendant’s violation of the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Act.
    • Successfully represented major amusement park owner through trial in defense of a juvenile death case.  Representation included Supreme Court submissions and appearances prior to trial.  Results included seminal Supreme Court decision on the allocation of liability on behalf of the client as against a sovereign entity that was dismissed from the case due to the plaintiff’s failure to add the sovereign as a direct defendant prior to the expiration of the notice provisions of the torts claim act.  Based on our representation, the jury would be instructed to allocate liability for the sovereign’s negligence thus offsetting any potential negligence against the client.
    • Obtained summary judgment for a national engineering firm against claims of personal injury to a construction worker injured on a job site.  Issues related Affidavit of Merit Statute and its applicability to client’s field representative’s scope of work during the construction of a multi-million dollar U.S. Coast Guard facility.
    • Obtained summary judgement for a major national residential home developer against claims of personal injury by a construction worker injured on a job site.  Issues related to the scope of client’s involvement in the construction of a planned urban development. 
    • Obtained dismissal of claims against a major national residential home developer arising out of alleged defects in the construction of a multi-million dollar home.  Also recouped all costs and fees related to the client’s defense based on contractual indemnifications from co-defendant.
    • Obtained summary judgement for a major regional residential homebuilder against claims of construction defect arising out of damages to multi-million dollar beachfront home caused during Hurricane Sandy.
    • Obtained summary judgment for a developer and general contractor in a construction defect case. The plaintiff, a homeowners association, sued multiple parties seeking $2.5 million in damages related to water infiltration due to the allegedly negligent installation of roofing, exterior cladding, windows, doors, railings and decks. We also represented several previous developer/association board members who were sued individually. Prior to filing suit, the plaintiff filed a claim with the state of New Jersey under the Home Owners Warranty program.
    • Obtained dismissal of all claims against major energy company related to death claim. Deceased’s estate alleged that client was implicated in an alleged failure to provide safety on the roof of a construction site which resulted in the deceased falling through roof to his death.

Results

View all

Obtained Positive Outcome in a Construction Site-Related Personal Injury Case

We secured a positive outcome for our client in a construction site-related personal injury case in New Jersey. After a month of trial, we successfully placed the entirety of the plaintiff’s $4.2 million jury verdict against the remaining co-defendant. We also succeeded in placing all of our client’s costs and attorney’s fees on the co-defendant. In total, the judgment against the co-defendant was in excess of $7 million.

Thought Leadership

View all

Case Law Alerts

The Lack of a Retainage Payment to General Contractor Did Not Bar Payment to the General Contractor's Subcontractors, Regardless of a Condition Precedent Requiring that the General Contract be Paid Before the Subcontractors

July 1, 2023

As addressed in the unreported case of J &M Interiors, Inc. v. Centerton Square Owners, LLC, (A-2536-19, 2021 WL 1976648 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 18, 2021), the lack of a retainage payment to a general contractor (GC) did not bar payment to the GC’s subcontractors, regardless of a condition precedent requiring that the GC be paid before the subcontractors. This “condition precedent” has been dubbed a “pay-if-paid” provision. Seeing such a provision as a matter of first impression in this case, the court has confirmed that “pay-if-paid” provisions in construction contracts are enforceable “as long as the contract on its face contains clear and unequivocal language that unambiguously sets forth the parties’ intention and agreement that owner payment is a condition precedent to the general contractor's obligation to pay the subcontractor.” Thus, the risk of payment is shifted to the subcontractors, unless the GC has “prevented or hindered” the owner’s payment, which would shift the onus back to the GC. Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Case Law Alerts

New Jersey Extends the Statute of Limitations in Construction Cases Involving Planned Real Estate Development Associations

July 1, 2022

N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 has been amended to add a new subsection. The addition provides that the timing of a claim filed by a planned real estate development association is tolled “until an election is held and the owners comprise a majority of the board.” This extends the prior statute of limitations for a construction defect claim (not arising from an unsafe condition) which was calculated at six years from the date of substantial completion of the planned real estate development project. The new law tolls the time for an association “acting through, on behalf of, or at the behest of the developer,” but it does not expressly toll it for claims against subcontractors.  In a practical sense, the expiration of the statute of limitations for claims against a general contractor and/or its subcontractors can thereby occur before accrual of an association’s claims. Regardless, a developer would not be able to take advantage of the tolling of time to bring related claims (contractual and/or tort) against its own contractors if the association does not sue the contractor/subs directly.   Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Legislation Updates

Since June 1, 2026, there have been no new New Jersey workers’ compensation related cases from the Appellate or Supreme Courts. As such, below will highlight any new legislative updates since February. A1023 | S3984 - Medical Use of Cannabis Under Certain Circumstances This requires workers’ compensation, PIP, and health insurance coverage for the medical use of cannabis under certain circumstances. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee. It was also introduced on March 19, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. A1045  - Certain Injuries to Volunteer and Professional Public Safety and Law Enforcement Personnel This revises workers’ compensation coverage for certain injuries to volunteer and professional public safety and law enforcement personnel. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A1384 | S2757 - Reduce Statute of Limitations in Medical Fee Disputes This reduces statute of limitations from six years to two years in medical fee disputes in workers’ compensation matters. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A1870 | S1379 - Workers' Compensation Benefits For Certain Workers Due to September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks This provides workers’ compensation benefits for certain public safety workers who developed illness or injury as result of responding to September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On February 5, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. A2779 | S1521 - Excludes Certain Illegal Aliens This excludes certain illegal aliens from workers’ compensation and temporary disability benefits. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A2792 | S1555 -  Prevent Intoxicated Employees from Workers’ Compensation This prevents intoxicated employees from receiving workers’ compensation. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A3167 | S2372 - Workers’ Compensation Insurance Requirements for Certain Corporations and Partnerships This concerns workers’ compensation insurance requirements for certain corporations and partnerships. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A3548 | S3571 – Maximum Benefits for Certain Volunteers This provides certain volunteer and other workers with maximum compensation benefit for workers' compensation claim regardless of outside employment. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On March 2, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly State and Local Government Committee. A3724 - Personal Liability to Employer Officers for Failure to Pay for Coverage This provides personal liability for owner, executive officer, or executive director of employer for failure to pay for workers' compensation coverage. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee. A4617  - Certain Workers' Compensation Supplemental Benefits and Funding Method This concerns certain workers' compensation supplemental benefits and funding method. For a permanently and totally disabled worker or surviving dependents after December 31, 1979, with some exceptions, this bill provides for an annual cost of living adjustment in the weekly workers’ compensation benefit rate. It was introduced on March 10, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. S241 - Inclusion in Database of Appointed Officials This requires that workers’ compensation judges and administrative law judges be included in database of appointed officials. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 to the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee. S2290 -  Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 72. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. S3144 - Testimony in Workers’ Compensation This concerns submission of testimony in workers’ compensation claims. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. S3342  - Increase Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 75. It was introduced on February 5, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Thought Leadership

Appellate Court Rejects Horizontal Immunity Defense to Company Not Acting as Statutory Subcontractor

The First District Court of Appeal held that a property management company was not entitled to horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in a negligence action brought by an employee of another company working on the property. The claimant was injured while servicing a swimming pool at an apartment complex. His employer had contracted with the property owner to maintain the pool. Following the accident, the claimant received workers' compensation benefits through his employer’s carrier. The claimant subsequently filed a negligence action against the property management company, alleging that it failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn him of a dangerous condition that caused his injuries. The property management company had been retained by the property owner to maintain the complex in good operating condition and to perform routine maintenance and repair work. The property management company argued that it was immune from suit under section 440.10(1)(e) of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law. That provision grants immunity to a subcontractor providing services in conjunction with a contractor on the same project or contract work from civil actions brought by employees of another subcontractor, subject to limited exceptions. According to the property management company, it qualified as a subcontractor working on the same project as the claimant’s employer and was therefore entitled to horizontal immunity. The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment in its favor. On appeal, however, the claimant argued, and the appellate court agreed, that horizontal immunity applies only when a contractor has sublet work arising from a contractual obligation owed to a third party. The court noted that prior decisions consistently held that an entity acting solely on its own behalf as the owner of property, rather than pursuant to a contract with a third party, is not a “contractor” under section 440.10(1), even when it hires other companies to perform work on the property. In Teed, the property management company could not establish that the property owner had a primary contractual obligation to a third party to maintain either the apartment complex or the swimming pool, which it then delegated to the claimant’s employer or the property management company. As a result, the property owner did not qualify as a statutory contractor, and the property management company was not a subcontractor entitled to horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e). The First District therefore reversed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings on the claimant’s negligence claim.

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

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/

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.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Holds That a Claimant Who Was Struck By a Car While Crossing the Street During an Unpaid Break Was In the Course and Scope of Employment

This case involved a claim petition filed by a claimant who sustained injuries after being struck by a vehicle while crossing the street in front of the employer’s premises. The employer denied the claim based on course and scope, as the accident occurred during one of two mandatory fifteen (15) minute breaks provided to the claimant. The claimant would punch out at the beginning of a break and punch back in when the break was over.  On the date of the incident, the claimant punched out and left the building to get lunch at a restaurant, which required her to cross the employer’s parking lot, and then a public street, where the injury occurred. The Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ) dismissed the petition, noting that that during the two mandatory fifteen-minute breaks per shift allowed by the employer, the claimant was free to leave the employer’s premises, and during breaks, permitted to engage in whatever activity she desired. The WCJ found that at the time of the accident, the claimant was on her own time, in the middle of the street, and going to get lunch.   The claimant filed an appeal with the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board), and the Board reversed.  According to the Board, the claimant’s location was still on the employer’s premises, as the claimant was taking her customary route while using a reasonable ingress/egress from the employer.  Further, the Board found that the “Personal Comfort Doctrine” applied, as the claimant was on a momentary departure to take care of her personal comfort, within the window of time she was allotted for her break.  The Board remanded the case, and a WCJ granted the claim petition.  The Board affirmed, and the employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Before the Court, the employer argued that the claimant was not in the course and scope of her employment, because the injury did not occur on its premises, and the claimant was outside the bounds of the Personal Comfort Doctrine. The Court, however, rejected these arguments, and dismissed the employer’s appeal.  The Court noted that the break given to the claimant was so cursory, when she set out to relieve her hunger for her own personal comfort,  she remained in the course of her employment when she sustained her injuries.  A Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the Supreme Court has been filed by the Employer, Giant Eagle.