.

Adam M. Barnes

Portrait of Adam M. Barnes

Adam is a Shareholder in the Casualty Department and, for over 25 years, has concentrated his practice in the defense of companies and individuals in a wide range of general liability civil litigation matters. He routinely defends clients against claims of bodily injuries and property damage involving premises and retail liability, construction injury, property subrogation, automobile liability, trucking and transportation liability, uninsured and underinsured motorist claims, hospitality & liquor liability, and product liability.

Adam has litigated cases throughout Pennsylvania as well as West Virginia and eastern Ohio; tried matters in both state and federal courts; and handled appeals before appellate courts in all three states.

Adam has over 20 years' experience providing counsel and defense of coverage issues involving commercial general liability, auto liability, umbrella/excess liability, and property policies, as well as homeowners and personal auto liability policies.

Adam has defended private businesses against employment law matters involving claims made under Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act at the administrative level before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, as well as in Pennsylvania state and federal courts.

Adam has been recognized as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer since 2019. He has authored materials and presented for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute on a range of topics. He has authored materials and presented at seminars for general liability claim professionals on general liability claims, uninsured/underinsured motorist claims, risk transfer, and insurance coverage issues.

Adam graduated from Indiana University – Bloomington in 1993 (cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa) and earned his law degree from Indiana University School of Law – Bloomington in 1999.

    • Indiana University Maurer School of Law (J.D., 1999)
    • Indiana University-Bloomington (B.A., cum laude, 1993)
    • Pennsylvania, 1999
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 1999
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2006
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2010
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2001
    • West Virginia, 2001
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of West Virginia, 2001
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of West Virginia, 2002
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 4th Circuit, 2004
    • Ohio, 2006
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio, 2012
    • Supreme Court of the United States, 2005
    • Successfully obtained summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of an insurer, with the court ruling that there was no duty to defend or indemnify a security company in lawsuits arising from violent attacks at a Philadelphia bar. The court held that claims styled as negligence were barred by a broad assault and battery exclusion, which capped coverage at $250,000—a limit already exhausted—thereby precluding any additional coverage. The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mainline Private Security, LLC, 2025 WL 3644242 (E.D.Pa. 2025).
    • Successfully defended a construction contractor client in a Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania action seeking compensatory damages for alleged flood-related property damage arising from an improperly constructed sewage separation line. Obtained dismissal of the claims through Preliminary Objections based on the expiration of the applicable two-year statute of limitations. On appeal, the plaintiff argued the complaint supported a theory of continuous trespass; however, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding the action was untimely and that no continuous trespass claim had been pled. Milan Stefanik Slovak Library and Literary Society a/k/a Milan Stefanik Slovak Society v. Borough of East Vandergrift, et al., 2025 WL 3527288 (Pa. Commwlth. Ct. 2025).
    • Obtained a summary judgment on a first-party commercial property claim where the insured sought coverage for alleged property damage to its warehouse resulting from lessee's failure to clean it as the claim did not involve “accidental physical loss” and furthermore, the alleged damage fell within scope of policy's pollutants exclusion. Vale Vista Associates LP v. Cincinnati Casualty Co., 442 F.Supp.3d 896 (W.D.Pa. 2020) 
    • Obtained a summary judgment regarding the interpretation of an arbitration provision in a commercial auto policy with respect to a claim for underinsured motorist benefits. Rea v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 2014 WL 4198059 (W.D.Pa. 2014) 
    • Affirming the granting of summary judgment based on enforcement of the statute of limitations to a claim for damage to residential property. Roberts v. West Virginia American Water Co., 655 S.E.2d 119 (W.Va. 2007) 
    • Affirming the granting of summary judgment based on the enforcement of professional liability exclusions contained in the businessowners package policy and personal liability policy in response to attempt to obtain coverage by the insured-attorney for a malicious prosecution claim related to the insured’s filing of a counterclaim based on Rule 11 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a client against the Estate prosecuting a medical negligence / wrongful death lawsuit. Boggs v. Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital Corp., 693 S.E.2d 53 (W.Va. 2010) 
    • Affirming the granting of summary judgment in favor of real estate agency and realtor arising out of the sale of residential property. Hinerman v. Rodriguez, 2013 WL 2157766 (W.Va. 2013) 
    • Affirming the granting of summary judgment in favor of real estate agency and realtor arising out of the sale of residential property in response to a subsequently added claim after the original claim was dismissed by summary judgment and upheld on appeal. Hinerman v. Rodriguez, 2015 WL 3672260 (W.Va. 2015) 
    • Affirming of summary judgment in favor of paving contractor arising out of claim of residential property damage attributed to roadway paving operations as plaintiffs failed to present competent evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact linking to contractor’s operations to the alleged damage. Grant v. Kelly Paving, Inc., 2018 WL 6015816 (W.Va. 2018) 
    • Affirming the granting of summary judgment for commercial general liability insurer against claim for defense and coverage by policyholder in response to third-party liability claim associated with the development of commercial retail plaza in southern West Virginia on the grounds the claim was excluded by the contractual liability exclusion as interpreted under Tennessee law. J.A. Street & Associates, Inc. v. BITCO General Insurance Corp., 2019 WL 1949710 (W.Va. 2019)
    • Affirming the granting of summary judgment in favor of construction contractor that deposited road construction spoil onto a private residential property at the then-owner’s request, per the then-owner’s specifications; the fill area later slipped, and the current owner sued alleging a breach of the duty of care. The appellate court affirmed that the construction contractor did not assume a duty of care to subsequent purchasers. Grisell v. Shelly & Sands, 2023 WL 7299892 (W.Va. 2023) 
    • Affirming the granting of summary judgment in favor of commercial property insurer on the grounds that the insured failed to present competent evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that the loss event was due to direct physical loss to a transformer, which was necessary to establish coverage for the claim. Hickory Groves 339, LLC v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 2016 WL 3261018 (Ohio.Ct.App., 4th District 2016)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2019-2025)
    • Allegheny County Bar Association
    • Defense Trial Counsel of West Virginia
    • Ohio Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute
    • West Virginia Bar Association

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

The Ohio Supreme Court Extends Sham-Affidavit Rule to Contradictory Expert Reports

Legal Roundup: Ohio In its June 23, 2026, decision in Moore v. Mercy Medical Center, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a trial court’s decision to strike an expert witness’s affidavit that contradicted the opinions expressed in the expert’s prior report. This case pertains to allegations of medical malpractice after plaintiff Cheri Moore gave birth to an infant in respiratory distress who required intubation. Moore alleged that a delay in ordering an emergency cesarean section resulted in the need for intubation, causing her child’s injuries. Specifically, Moore sued Dr. Meniru, who completed his first shift at 7:00 a.m. on May 28, 2015, and did not resume treating Moore until 7:00 a.m. on May 29, 2015. One of Moore’s expert witnesses authored a report stating that the doctors, including Dr. Meniru, deviated from the standard of care by not advocating for a cesarean section in the evening of May 28, 2015. Based on this report, Dr. Meniru moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged breach occurred during a period when he was not on duty. In response to the summary judgment motion, the plaintiff filed an affidavit from the same expert. Although the expert expressly incorporated his previous report into his affidavit, he also offered an additional opinion: that Dr. Meniru breached the standard of care by failing to begin a cesarean section within 30 minutes of receiving reports of fetal distress. Dr. Meniru filed a motion to strike the expert’s affidavit, arguing that it contradicted the opinions set forth in his prior report in violation of the sham-affidavit rule. The sham-affidavit rule applies to “a contradictory affidavit that indicates only that the affiant cannot maintain a consistent story, or is willing to offer a statement solely for the purpose of defeating summary judgment”. Moore, supra, at ¶ 19, citing Pettiford v. Aggarwal, 126 Ohio St.3d 413, 2010-Ohio-3237. The trial court granted both the motion to strike and the motion for summary judgment, and the Fifth District affirmed. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted two questions of law: (1) whether the sham-affidavit rule applies when the sworn testimony contradicts prior unsworn statements; and (2) whether an inconsistency within the affidavit goes to credibility or admissibility, justifying an order striking the affidavit. Previous rulings by the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the sham-affidavit rule have pertained to contradictions between an affidavit and sworn deposition testimony. See, e.g., Byrd v. Smith, 2006- Ohio-3455, 110 Ohio St.3d 24, 850 N.E.2d 47. However, here, the Court was asked to apply the same rule to contradictions between a sworn affidavit and an unsworn expert report. The Court held that, because Moore’s expert incorporated his prior report into his affidavit, he effectively adopted the report as part of his sworn testimony.

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reaffirms Liberal Pleading Standard in Medical Malpractice Actions

Legal Roundup: Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Superior Court has reinforced a broader fact-pleading approach that may make it more difficult for health care defendants to obtain dismissal at the preliminary objection stage. In DaSilva v. Abington Memorial Hospital, the court held that the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint satisfied Pennsylvania’s fact‑pleading requirements despite the absence of individually named negligent actors. In DaSilva, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint alleging that Abington Memorial Hospital was directly and vicariously negligent after the patient, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, was left unattended by hospital staff, exited the emergency department, and was struck by a vehicle, suffering serious injuries. The trial court sustained the hospital’s preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, stating plaintiffs “failed to plead any material factual allegations in support of their claims of negligence [and] set forth vague allegations of negligence and unidentified agency.” Id. at *5. The plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, holding that the complaint sufficiently pled negligence and vicarious liability claims under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). The court concluded that allegations describing the patient’s condition, the hospital’s awareness of that condition, and the alleged failure to monitor or prevent elopement were adequate to satisfy Pennsylvania’s pleading requirements. Significantly, the court rejected the hospital’s argument that the complaint failed because it did not identify the specific employees responsible for the alleged negligence. Instead, the court found that generalized references to “emergency room staff” were sufficient to place the hospital on notice of the claims because “the names of those who performed services for the plaintiff are known to the defendant or can be ascertained during discovery.” Id. at *12 (citing Est. of Denmark ex rel. Hurst v. Williams, 117 A.3d 300, 307 (Pa. Super. 2015)). The effect of DaSilva is that plaintiffs may proceed past the pleading stage with relatively generalized allegations, particularly in cases involving institutional defendants where relevant details are uniquely within the defendant’s control. As a result, health care defendants should anticipate that challenges to claim sufficiency may be resolved in the later stages of litigation, including discovery and summary judgment.

News

106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America

Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 106 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for this recognition. Additionally, four of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” awards in their respective practice areas and demographic regions. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. For more information, please visit https://www.bestlawyers.com/. OUR 2027 LAWYERS OF THE YEAR Harrisburg, PA Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers Compensation Law - Employers Roseland, NJ Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA Philadelphia, PA Nicholas D. Bowers, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Josh J. T. Byrne, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Jefferey J. Chomko, Insurance Law James H. Cole, Insurance Law John J. Delany III, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Laurianne Falcone, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John P. Gonzales, Employment Law - Management John Hare, Appellate Practice Daniel D. Krebbs, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Michele Punturi, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Bradley D. Remick, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Andrea Cicero Rock, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robin M. Romano, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Daniel J. Ryan, Jr., Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Gary M. Samms, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Christopher N. Santoro, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation -Defendants Josh D. Scheets, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Robert P. Schenk, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robert E. Smith, Insurance Law Robin Snyder, Litigation - Health Care Michael L. Turner, Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Claire Breaux Ventola, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Melissa Devich Cochran, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants  John F. Deasy, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Daniel W. Deitrick, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Douglas C. LaSota, Litigation - Construction; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Joseph V. Lesinski, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants   Christian D. Marquis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia A. Monahan, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Patrick T. Reilly, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Brett C. Shear, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Teresa O. Sirianni, Education Law; Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment Stuart Sostmann, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Scranton, PA Sarah E. Argo, Litigation - Insurance Michael J. Connolly, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Matthew Keris, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants John T. McGrath, Jr., Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants William J. McPartland, Insurance Law John R. Nealon, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Victoria Scanlon, Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Michael A. Sebastian, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Thomas A. Specht, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Suzanne Tighe, Litigation Insurance Harrisburg , PA Casey Alan Coyle, Administrative/Regulatory Law; Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation Brittany E. Bakshi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Shannon P. Fellin, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Allison Krupp, Insurance Law John R. Ninosky, Litigation – Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers King of Prussia, PA  Michael L. Detweiler, Construction Law Joseph L. Hoynoski III, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Gregory J. Kelley, Construction Law, Litigation - Construction Anthony Natale III, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Francis X. Wickersham, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers A. Judd Woytek, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers Erie, PA Patrick M. Carey, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Joel M. Snavely, Health Care Law; Insurance Law New Haven, CT Michael Wrona, Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Bankruptcy  Mount Laurel, NJ David D. Blake, Litigation - Insurance Barbara Davis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lynne Nahmani, Litigation - Health Care John H. Osorio, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John L. Slimm, Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants Roseland, NJ Robert T. Evers, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Julia Klubenspies, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard C. Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia M. McDonagh, Appellate Practice Sunny Sparano, Litigation - Construction Randall S. Watts, Health Care Law New York, NY Tonya M. Lindsey, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Tampa, FL Michael Archibald, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lindsay G. McCormick, Litigation – Construction Orlando, FL Thomas F. Brown, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Dante C. Rohr, Commercial Litigation Fort Lauderdale, FL Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Appellate Practice Patrick M. Delong, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Jacksonville, FL  Heather Byrer Carbone, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Linda Wagner Farrell, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Elizabeth B. Ferguson, Litigation - Construction James P. Hanratty, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Wilmington, DE Sarah B. Cole, Litigation - Insurance Benjamin K. Durstein, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Maria R. Granaudo, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants  Keri L. Morris-Johnston, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Cincinnati, OH Timothy B. Schenkel, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David E. Williamson, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Cleveland, OH Vincent E. Cononico, Litigation – Insurance, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Jillian L. Dinehart, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David J. Fagnilli, Insurance Law Jason P. Ferrante, Health Care Law, Litigation - Health Care Andrew H. Isakoff, Transportation Law Leslie M. Jenny, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendant OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS: ONES TO WATCH Jacksonville, FL Sean J. Reeves, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Orlando, FL Carolin A. Pacheco, Insurance Law Mount Laurel Stacey Gorin, Insurance Law Melville, NY Kimberly Gitlin, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Matthew A. Gray, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Philadelphia, PA Holli K. Archer, Health Care Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law Emily Pritchyk, Commercial Litigation; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Taylor E. Kosko, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Alana Staniszewski, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Michael D. Winsko, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants; Transportation Law King of Prussia, PA Richard Lechette, Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants