.

Allison L. Krupp

Co-Chair, Insurance Services Practice Group

ALKrupp@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Allison L. Krupp

Allison is a member of the Professional Liability Department where she concentrates her practice on insurance coverage and bad faith litigation.  She routinely represents national/global insurance carriers in insurance coverage disputes and first-party automotive claims brought against them.  Allison is experienced in many types of coverage issues, including: policy cancellation, policy reformation, phantom vehicle cases, and a variety of policy exclusions.  She also defends clients in the area of bad faith litigation. She practices in Pennsylvania state and federal court, as well as before arbitration panels and appellate courts.

For two years prior to joining the firm, Allison served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Judge Donald R. Totaro in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas.  During her final year of law school, Allison served as a legal extern for the Honorable Justice J. Michael Eakin of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  She also served as a certified legal intern for the Pennsylvania State Civil Service Commission in the Hearings and Appeals Department. 

In 2006, Allison graduated magna cum laude from York College of Pennsylvania.  She then attended the Widener University School of Law and graduated cum laude in 2009.  During her time in law school, Allison served on Widener’s Law Journal and was the president of the Moot Court Honor Society from 2008 to 2009.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., cum laude, 2009)
    • York College of Pennsylvania (B.A., magna cum laude, 2006)
    • Pennsylvania, 2009
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, “Lawyer of the Year,” Harrisburg, Insurance Law (2025)
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Insurance Law (2024-2026)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2019)
    • American Inns of Court
    • Cumberland County Bar Association
    • Dauphin County William J. Lipsitt Inn of Court, Associate
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Bad Faith 2022, Pennsylvania Bar Institute CLE, September 2022
    • Exploring Bad Faith – Practical Discussion of Bad Faith Law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud 360 Seminar, Lafayette Hill, PA, June 2022
    • All things UM/UIM & Bad Faith in PA, Marshall Dennehey Virtual Client Presentation, February 2021
    • An Overview of Pennsylvania Law for Auto Law & Premises Claims, Marshall Dennehey Virtual Client Presentation, February 2021
    • Proper Handling of UM/UIM Claims:  The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, June 17, 2016
    • Regular Use Exclusions in Pennsylvania -- Coverage Issues and Practical Applications, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, June 2015
    • Recent Pennsylvania Trial and Appellate Case Law, Cumberland County Lunch and Learn, March 2015
    • "'Regular Use Exclusions' Stand: Pa. Supreme Court's Latest Ruling Post-'Gallagher',"The Legal Intelligencer Insurance Law Supplement, August 20, 2024
    • "Federal District Court’s Discretionary Jurisdiction Over Declaratory Judgment Actions: Recent Trends and Developments," Pennsylvania Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (PAMIC), Winter 2022 Edition
    • "Pa. Ruling Leaves Auto Policy Stacking Questions,"Law360, November 10, 2021
    • “Just How Hard Does Gallagher Hit the Household Vehicle Exclusion?,” Defense Digest, Vol. 25, No. 2, June 2019
    • "Airbnb and Insurance Coverage: Is It Up in the Air?" The Legal Intelligencer's Insurance Law Supplement, page 7, August 29, 2017
    • “A Perfectly Imperfect Process: Dauphin County’s First Post-Koken Jury Trial: Oaks v. Erie Insurance Exchange and Austin,” Defense Digest, Volume 20, No. 3, September 2014 
    • “Where to Sue Since Summy,” Defense Digest, Volume 20, No. 3, September 2014
    • Legal Updates for Coverage and Bad Faith, Editor, 2014-present
    • "Reservations Over Reserving Your Rights," Defense Digest, Volume 19, No. 4, December 2013
    • "Predicting the Future of Predictive Coding," Defense Digest, Volume 18, No. 1, March 2012
    • Assisted with obtaining summary judgment in favor of the insurer in federal court on all 7 counts of the complaint, including breach of contract, insurance bad faith, misrepresentation, negligence, deceit, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair trade practices.
    • Assisted with obtaining a decision from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirming the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the insurer on counts of insurance bad faith and violations of the MVFRL.
    • Assisted with obtaining a decision from the Commonwealth Court affirming the Insurance Commissioner’s decision in favor of the insurer, where the policyholder had challenged a homeowner’s policy cancellation.
    • Assisted with obtaining summary judgment in favor of the insurer in Pennsylvania state court on counts of breach of contract and insurance bad faith.
    • Worked on multiple cases regarding the validity and applicability of stacking waivers on Pennsylvania auto policies, and obtained summary judgment in several of those cases.
    • Assisted with successfully opposing a Motion for Class Certification in a Philadelphia County TCPA case.
    • Obtained a defense verdict from a Philadelphia County arbitration panel, where the underlying issue was permissive use of a vehicle.
    • Obtained defense verdicts from Lancaster County arbitration panels in two separate property damage cases involving a neighbor dispute.
    • Obtained a defense verdict from a magisterial district judge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
    • Second-chaired and received a defense verdict in a high-profile casualty case, where the plaintiff sustained serious injury in a sprint car accident. 

Results

View all

Achieved Dismissal of an Appeal of Our Defense Verdict

We won dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal of a defense verdict. Our client issued a professional liability insurance policy to the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs were sued for legal malpractice, they notified our client of the suit and asked them to provide counsel to defend the matter. However, the plaintiffs never agreed to counsel proposed by our client. The plaintiffs then proceeded to mediation in the legal malpractice action and settled the matter without notifying our client. As a result, our client denied the plaintiffs’ request for indemnification. The plaintiffs then brought suit against our client for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging they wrongly denied indemnification and failed to provide counsel. The matter went to jury trial from April 8–11, 2024, where we successfully defended our client as the jury returned a defense verdict. The plaintiffs filed post-trial motions and then appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the jury to see a copy of the insurance contract during their deliberations. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal and found that the plaintiffs waived their argument by failing to cite relevant legal authority in their appellate brief. The Superior Court also stated in a footnote that, should the court have reached the issue on appeal, it would have found it meritless because the insurance contract was a central piece of evidence to which the plaintiffs did not object during trial.

Jury Verdict Received in a Breach of Contract Action

We secured a jury verdict in a breach of contract/statutory bad faith action that arose under a legal malpractice policy issued to a law firm by our insurance company client. The plaintiffs settled a malpractice claim set forth against them without our client’s knowledge or consent. The insurance company then denied coverage for that claim, and the plaintiffs filed suit. Because the case included a bad faith claim, if the plaintiffs prevailed on both counts, the damages could have been seven figures or more. We took the case to trial before Judge Patrick in Philadelphia County. The jury returned a verdict on the breach of contract claim, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their damages by a preponderance of the evidence. The judge then dismissed the statutory bad faith claim.

Thought Leadership

View all

‘Regular Use Exclusions’ Stand: Pa. Supreme Court’s Latest Ruling Post-’Gallagher’

August 20, 2024

After the Pennsylvania Superior Court determined in 2021 that “regular use exclusions” in UM/UIM policies violate the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), and in a post-Gallagher legal landscape, some were ready to put the regular use exclusion to rest for good. Now, however, in Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 308 A.3d 780 (Pa. Jan. 29, 2024), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a lengthy majority opinion, has confirmed that the regular use exclusion remains very much alive.

Legal Updates for Coverage & Bad Faith

New Jersey Legislature Passes Bad Faith – What’s Next??

January 14, 2022

New Jersey is on the brink of its first insurance bad faith statute after clearing both the Senate and Assembly by vote on January 10, 2022. While the New Jersey Legislature website does not indicate when it may happen, it is anticipated that Governor Murphy will sign this Bill into law. The Bill is titled “New Jersey Insurance Fair Conduct Act.” The statute provides “claimants” with a private cause of action for conduct deemed “unfair and discriminatory,” as delineated in the Act, N.J.S.A. 17:B29-4. The earliest version of the Bill applied to all lines of insurance. However, the Assembly and Senate Committees pared the initial legislation down, and the current form of the law applies only to underinsured and uninsured motorist claims.  Per the language of the statute, a claimant may file a civil action against an automobile insurer for “(1) an unreasonable delay or unreasonable denial of a claim for payment of benefits under an insurance policy; or (2) any violation of the provisions of section 4 of P.L. 1947, c.379 (C.17:29B-4) [The New Jersey Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act].” It is important to note that in New Jersey, a private right of action did not exist under the Act. Instead, the state could take administrative action against the insurer for violations of the Act, but only if the violations constituted a “general business practice.” This Bill not only creates a private cause of action under the Act, but (unlike the state) a private claimant is not required to prove that the insurer’s actions were of such a frequency as to indicate a general business practice. If the claimant establishes that a violation has occurred, he/she “shall” be entitled to actual damages caused by the violation and prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney’s fees and all reasonable litigation expenses. Thus, the Bill turns a law designed to deter “general business practices” into a sword to punish violations on a case-by-case basis, which was never its original intent.  It is unclear at this point how the courts will interpret “unreasonable delay” and/or “unreasonable denial”; however, they are certainly issues that will generate a great deal of litigation in the coming years.  The attorneys in Marshall Dennehey’s Insurance Services Practice Group are highly experienced in handling such litigation and stand ready to answer questions and help you defend these cases once the Bill is signed into law.  Click here to view the Bill: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2020/S1559 or contact us for a copy.   Legal Updates for Insurance Services – January 14, 2022, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved.

News

View all

Events

View all

Speaking Engagement

2026 Pennsylvania Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (PAMIC) Claims Summit

April 8, 2026

Jeffrey G. Rapattoni, James H. Cole, Alec N. DelConte, and Allison L. Krupp

Firm Highlights

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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.  *Thomas F. Glassman, a shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s Cincinnati office, filed a brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, in support of the insurer’s position.

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

State of Insurance: Q2 Notes From Pennsylvania

Thought Leadership

The Best Defense is Already in the File: Documentation in Civil Rights Litigation

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

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.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney