.

Anthony Natale III

Chair, Medicare Compliance Practice

Shareholder

APNatale@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Anthony Natale III

Tony devotes his practice to Pennsylvania workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, municipal law (Heart and Lung Act), and federal Longshore and Harbor workers' compensation. He focuses on high-exposure, complex litigation including repetitive trauma claims, occupational disease and hearing loss claims, as well as chemical sensitivity claims. He also actively represents the National Hockey League and the National Basketball Association in regard to workers' compensation matters. In addition, Tony is the Chair of our Medicare Compliance Practice.

Tony has represented law firms, financial institutions, forging companies, steel mills, transportation companies, aeronautical/space manufacturers, universities and hospitals in various types of workers' compensation and unemployment compensation matters. He has handled multiple high-exposure workers' compensation chemical and toxic tort claims involving mass defendants, and he has had a high success rate in having clients dismissed from same.

Tony is the founder of Marshall Dennehey's in-house workers' compensation Continuing Legal Education program. He is also frequently called upon to speak to insurance companies and self-insured employers in the areas of workers' compensation and employment law.

    • Successfully argued that viewing the September 11 terrorist events and suffering a psychological condition did not rise to the degree of a work injury under Pennsylvania law.
    • Refined the interpretation of workers' compensation case law as it relates to the staute of limitations regarding death claims from medication abuse.
    • Successfully defeated and/or resolved at base value more than 400 high-exposure hearing loss cases in western and eastern Pennsylvania.
    • Successfully defended 50 late answer high-exposure claim petitions in eastern and middle Pennsylvania in 2007.
    • Successfully handled multiple heart attack and psychological claims.
    • Successfully handled multiple toxic tort (asbestos, silica) cases.
    • University of Pittsburgh School of Law (J.D., 1991)
    • University of Pennsylvania (B.A., 1988)
    • Pennsylvania, 1991
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers (2025-2027)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2026)
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Average Weekly Wage, panelist, Pennsylvania Bar Association Workers' Compensation Fall Section Meeting, September 12, Hershey, Pennsylvania
    • How to Deal With Difficult Litigants, Pennsylvania Bar Institute's Tough Problems in Workers' Compensation webinar, May 11, 2023
    • Workers' Compensation Case Law Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 27, 2022
    • Hot Topics in Workers' Comp and Litigation Trends, Philly I-Day, Philadelphia, PA, September 20, 2022
    • "Insurance Defense Attorneys Combat Workers' Compensation Fraud,"AM Best Insurance Law Podcast, August 31, 2022
    • What People Do For Money:  Identifying Claimant Fraud In Workers’ Compensation Cases, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud 360 Seminar, Lafayette Hill, PA, June, 2022 
    • The Right Way to Avoid a Wrongful Termination Claim When the Employee Is Also a Workers’ Compensation Claimant, Marshall Dennehey webinar, March 3, 2022
    • Navigate the Medicare Maze: A Practical Guide to Understanding Medicare Set-Asides, Marshall Dennehey webinar, November 19, 2020
    • Decisions, Decisions: A Legal Update, Marshall Dennehey webinar, October 28, 2020
    • HR Webinar Series Part I: Workers' Compensation Basics, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, February 13, 2020
    • Workers' Compensation and Medicare Legal Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 24, 2019
    • Identifying Fraudulent Workers' Compensation Claims, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 24, 2019
    • The Interplay Between Traumatic Brain Injuries and Fraud in Workers' Compensation, Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania, April 24, 2019
    • Influence of Pharmaceuticals and Changing Landscape in Workers' Comp Medical Costs, Philly I-Day, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 9, 2019
    • Workers' Compensation Case Law Update; and Workers' Compensation Fraud, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 25, 2018
    • Workers' Compensation Fraud: Don't Forget the Data, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud 360, June 13, 2018
    • Workers' Compensation Fraud: Don't Ignore the Data! 2018 Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Conference, Pocono Manor, Pennsylvania, April 13, 2018
    • Workers' Compensation Fraud: Don't Forget the Data, Philly I-Day, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 12, 2018
    • Biggest Mistakes Companies Make in Complying with Workers’ Compensation, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry Annual Human Resources Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania, November 28, 2017
    • Workers' Compensation Legal Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 19, 2017
    • If You See Something, Say Something – Detecting Workers' Compensation Fraud, Pennsylvania’s 2017 Insurance Fraud Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania, April 6, 2017
    • Case Law Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminars, October 19 and 27, 2016
    • Pennsylvania's Workers’ Compensation Law: Best Practices for Complying with Benefits, Understanding the Flow of a Workers’ Compensation Claim, and Tips to Prevent WC Fraud, PA Chamber of Business and Industry Workers' Compensation Summit, September 30, 2016
    • Check the Rulebook: Workers' Compensation Legal Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 22, 2015
    • Unemployment Compensation Roundtable, Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce, June 2015
    • Tough Problems in Workers' Compensation 2015, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 13, 2015
    • UC/WC 101 Benefits Roundtable, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, March 19, 2015
    • PEO's effect on Guaranty Fund: Insurance Company Perspective, Fund Perspective and Counsel Perspective, NCIGF 2014 Fall Workshop, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 22, 2014
    • Case Law and House Bill Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 30, 2014
    • Social Media and Workers’ Compensation, and Handling Unusual WC Situations, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry Workers' Compensation Summit, Hershey, Pennsylvania, October 1, 2014
    • Workers' Compensation Medical Fraud and Abuse, CEU Institute, June 25, 2014
    • Busted! Identifying, Proving And Prosecuting Workers' Compensation Fraud, National Workers' Compensation Insurance ExecuSummit, Uncasville, Connecticut, February 4-5, 2014
    • Understanding the Most Common Mistakes Made in Workers' Compensation, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry Annual Human Resources Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania, December 3, 2013
    • Tri-State Workers' Compensation Legal Update, Roadmap to Success - Understanding Workers' Compensation, Marshall Dennehey seminar, October 24, 2013
    • FrankenFraud – The New Employee Monster, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, November 30, 2012 
    • Workers' Compensation 101 Roundtable, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, June 8, 2012
    • Unemployment Claims Fraud: Protect Your Organization from Bogus Jobless Claims, Center for Competitive Management, April 19, 2012 
    • Unemployment Compensation Roundtable, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, Scranton, Pennsylvania, March 8, 2012; King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, March 16, 2012
    • The Interplay Between the Pennsylvania Heart and Lung Act and the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, AmeriHealth Casualty webinar, August 25, 2011
    • Top Ten Defenses to a Fee Review Action, Chubb Seminar, April 2011; discussion about the problems associated with provider fraud in fee review applications and a 10-point analysis on how to properly defend these cases
    • Workers' Compensation Primer, Drexel Seminar, March 2011; an analysis on how to defend workers' compensation actions in a university setting
    • Pennsylvania Claims Handling (monthly seminars in PA, NJ and DE), 2002-present
    • Defending Pennsylvania Claims, Boston, 2008
    • Prosecuting Fraud Under New Guides, Texas, 2006
    • Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Law and Claims Handling, Michigan, 2001
    • Case Law Updates to various insurers on monthly basis, 1998-2000
    • Prosecuting Fraud, 1997
    • Pennsylvania Forms Seminar, 1997
    • Act 57 Amendments, 1996
    • How to Defend Hearing Loss Cases, 1994
    • ADA and Workers' Compensation Act, five Pennsylvania cities, 1992
    • "Compensating the Boys of Fall - College Sports May Soon Face the Ultimate Call: Player or Employee?"CLM Magazine, October 22, 2025 
    • "Beware of the Language Used in Your Settlement Agreements: Medicare is Watching,"The Legal Intelligencer, Workers' Compensation Supplement, October 10, 2023
    • "Why do Claimants Lie? Because They Can and Swift Prosecution is the Only Way to Deter It,"CLM Magazine, June 2023
    • "The State of Pay-For-Play: College Athletes as Employees and the Implications for Workers' Compensation," CLM Magazine, September 2021
    • "Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act and the Student-Athlete: The Ultimate Mismatch," Pennsylvania Lawyer, September/October 2019
    • "Suicide Squeeze: An Overview of Pa. Workers' Comp and the Pro Athlete," The Legal Intelligencer, Workers' Compensation Supplement, October 30, 2018
    • "If You See Something, Say Something - The Importance of Identifying and Reporting Workers' Compensation Fraud," CLM Magazine (page 10), August 2017
    • Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Guide, Eighth Edition, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, contributing author, 2016
    • "The Treating Physician: A Misnomer in Workers' Comp Litigation," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, August 25, 2015
    • Insurance Agency Risk Management: E & O Exposures By Line of Business, chapter on workers' compensation, 2014 edition
    • "Practical Ramifications of Supreme Court Determination Involving Latent Manifestation of Occupational Diseases Under the PA Workers' Compensation Act," CounterPoint, newsletter of the PA Defense Institute, April 2014.
    • "PEOs: A New Potential for Workers' Comp Fraud? A Close Look at Professional Employer Organizations," National Underwriter Property & Casualty, October 2013
    • "Fee Review Litigation: An Overview," Pennsylvania Self-Insurers' Association newsletter, May 2011
    • "Retirement Does Not Mean Retirement When You are Collecting Workers' Compensation Benefits," The Philadelphia Lawyer, Summer 2011
    • "Ding Dong Kachinski's Dead: Commonwealth Court Declines To Resuscitate," Defense Digest, Vol. 16, No. 3, September 2010
    • Articles in Defense Digest and the Pennsylvania Self-Insurer's Association's publications

Results

View all
man with sling signing contract photo

Defense Verdict Obtained Involving an Employment-Related Shoulder Injury

Defense Verdict Secured in a Case Centered on an Employment-Related Low Back Injury

We received a defense verdict on our termination petition in a case where the claimant sustained a low back injury when he slipped and fell in an elevator during his employment. The employer had an IME wherein the claimant was pronounced fully recovered from strain injuries. The claimant presented evidence that alleged disc injury and ongoing radiculopathy. The matter proceeded to litigation and a decision on the merits. The court found the employer’s expert to be credible as to full recovery based on the finding that no architectural change could be identified between the claimant’s diagnostic studies when compared to studies from before and after the work injury.

Thought Leadership

View all

Compensating the Boys of Fall. College Sports May Soon Face the Ultimate Call: Player or Employee?

October 22, 2025

College sports may soon face the ultimate call: player or employee?

Beware of the Language Used in Your Settlement Agreements: Medicare Is Watching

October 2, 2023

The workers’ compensation practitioner has now become a forced bedfellow of CMS, like it or not. If you fail to “issue spot” in relevant settlements, you will have problems.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Thought Leadership

United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida finds Evidence of Replacement Cost Value is Admissible and Recoverable Even When Repairs Have Not Been Made

The plaintiff filed a claim for damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. It claimed damages were over $24 million, but the carrier accepted partial coverage and paid $8,307.49 for secondary components. The carrier found hurricane damage to the building, but it was below the insurance policy’s $3.6 million deductible. The plaintiff sued for breach of the insurance policy. The carrier argued in a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff could not recover replacement cost value (RCV) because the property repairs had not been effectuated. The policy provided for RCV, but only after the repairs were completed. The carrier argued that because the repairs were not completed, the plaintiff was not entitled to RCV damages. The plaintiff argued the carrier could not withhold the actual cost value (ACV) due, which was the main allegation of the lawsuit, then fault it for not making the repairs to unlock the RCV. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected the carrier’s argument, finding that when an insurer allegedly breached the policy by withholding coverage, it could not hide behind a repair-contingent provision to block the insured from RCV damages at trial. The court found the issue to be whether the contractual language designed to preclude certain coverage until after repairs are completed barred an insured from seeking those damages at trial when repairs were not complete. The court noted the Eleventh Circuit had not resolved this issue and neither side pointed to a definitive answer from the Florida Supreme Court. The court reasoned that it must look to the Sixth District Court of Appeal (6th DCA), which is the court which would have heard this case if it was in state court. The court noted the 6th DCA recently addressed this issue in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 427 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026). The Rodriguez Court found that a breach of contract action is designed to adjudicate not only whether the contract was breached, but also evaluate the damages incurred had the breach not occurred, which the Rodriguez court found to be recovery of the RCV. This court also noted basic Florida contract principles compelled the same result, as a material breach frees the nonbreaching party to suspend its own performance and can demand the full benefit of its bargain, including RCV damages. Finally, the court found the distinction between a full denial and partial denial did not compel a different result. It found the policy required the carrier to acknowledge coverage and pay ACV for all covered damages, and the failure to do that is a material breach, entitling the insured to all of the damages available under the contract, which included the RCV.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

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

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Result

Federal Statute Declared Constitutional

In this products liability case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court and upheld the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which resulted in judgment as a matter of law for the defendant manufacturer.

Thought Leadership

First DCA Reverses Excessive Jury Award Unsupported by the Evidence

In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a claim with Universal for damages caused by a water and sewage back up through the plumbing system and existing through multiple fixtures including the washing machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub and toilet. Universal investigated the claim, issued payment for resulting water damage totaling $7,000.00 in actual cash value ($12,000.00 in replacement cost value). The plaintiffs sought additional benefits for work needed to access the below-slab cast iron plumbing system due to the failure of the system from rust, deterioration, corrosion and breaks in the line. Universal denied any additional benefits for access. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed suit. During litigation, Universal sent a plumber to inspect the home and the plumber concluded the pipes were clogged but could be cleaned. The plaintiffs’ plumber testified that the plumbing system needed to be replaced due to holes and openings in the pipes. The plaintiffs introduced two estimates prepared by Triad Restoration services totaling $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value and an executed contract with another company for repairs with the amounts of repair redacted. Since the insurance policy did not provide coverage for repair or replacement of the plumbing system, the jury only had to decide whether the plumbing system needed to be replaced, and if it did, Universal would owe for the access costs; the jury verdict form required the jury to determine both the replacement cost value and actual cash value amounts. The jury asked if it had to rely on the Triad estimates for their amounts. The trial court advised the amount awarded had to be based on the evidence presented at trial and the law given by the trial court. The jury awarded $335,000.00 in replacement cost value or $305,000.00 in actual cash value. Universal motioned for a new trial arguing the amount awarded was unsupported by the evidence and then moved for remittitur. The trial court denied both motions and this appeal followed. The court found that while a jury’s verdict should only be disturbed with caution and discretion, the trial court must give the properly challenged award close scrutiny and determine whether it bears a reasonable relation to the damaged provided, is supported by the evidence, and could have been reached in a logical manner by reasonable means §768.74(3), (5)(d)-(e), Fla. Stat. The court found the trial court did consider the statutory requirements at the hearing on Universal’s remittitur motion and was concerned about a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and injury suffered and whether the award was supported by the evidence, but ultimately denied the motion, reasoning that the jury had been properly instructed to fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs. The court noted the only evidence providing the basis for the jury verdict was Triad’s estimates and those valued the plaintiffs' claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value; no valuation evidence reasonably supported the jury verdict. The plaintiffs argued that the jury was entitled to consider more than the estimates, but the court conveyed the evidence provided did not give the jury a way to reach the amounts they awarded. The court was also not swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument regarding inflation and later price increases, but the court noted that no evidence via the contract, nor testimony regarding increase in labor, material, fuel or construction costs were entered into the record.  The court concluded the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but it may not supply a damages number by speculation. The court did not find any of the plaintiffs’ remaining argument persuasive either. The court reversed the denial of Universal’s remittitur motion and motion for new trial as to damaged and remanded the case. The court ended its opinion with advising the trial court must determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the property measure of damages under the policy and order remittitur in an amount consistent with that determination and the evidence.

Thought Leadership

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees Due to Lack of Evidence to Support Fee Awarded

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding appellate fees to People’s Trust Insurance Company based upon a lack of evidence to support the attorney’s fee award in RM & Assocs. Consulting, Inc. v. People's Trust Ins. Co., 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 4654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). People’s Trust was the insurer of a residential property that had sustained water damage. RM & Associates Consulting was hired by the homeowner to perform mitigation services at the property. The homeowner assigned post-loss benefits to RM and RM subsequently filed suit against People’s Trust alleging that it had not been paid the money it was owed for the mitigation services. People’s Trust defended the lawsuit on the ground that the policy required the insured to notify the insurer before authorizing repairs so People's Trust could elect to use its preferred contractor. Because the owner did not comply with that provision, People's Trust asserted its liability was limited to the amount that its preferred contractor would have charged for the work, which People's Trust contended was $2,000. People's Trust paid that amount to RM before RM filed suit. People’s Trust filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. RM appealed the summary judgment ruling and the ruling was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate court also granted People’s Trust’s entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, subject to the trial court’s determination of the amount of fees, based upon an offer of judgment made by People's Trust. On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees People’s Trust was entitled to. At the hearing, People’s Trust presented testimony from it’s fee expert, supervising trial counsel and appellate counsel. People’s Trust sought recovery of $24,866.17 for work performed by appellate counsel. The request primarily consisted of work performed in preparation of the answer brief. The fee expert testified that more than ninety hours spent preparing the answer brief was reasonable given the complexity and significance of the underlying issue. The appellate court found that the fee expert’s testimony fell short of meeting the necessary standard of demonstrating that the hours expended were necessary. The appellate court found that the billing records did not serve to cure the deficient testimony, as the billing records did not contain adequate details regarding the specific tasks performed. Rather the records contained entries such as “answer brief” which the appellate court found to be insufficient. The appellate court noted that neither the fee expert or counsel addressed how the prior research and briefing in the parallel litigation informed the work in the instant matter. The appellate court noted this was significant in that a court's attorney's fees award must exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, citing Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based upon the record failing to support the finding of the trial court, the 4th DCA remanded the case to the trial court for a reconsideration and redetermination of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees supported by competent substantial evidence. The 4th DCA reiterated that the fee expert’s focus on the quality of the work and the importance of the work to People’s Trust did not make up for the perceived deficiencies in the position that spending over ninety hours on a single answer brief was reasonable. Whether moving for attorney’s fees or challenging the amount of fees being sought by an opposing party, practitioners should be mindful of the evidence being used to support the claims being made. Parties should pay close attention to whether the hours being sought may be impacted by prior litigation either party may have engaged in. A party must be prepared to address how prior litigation efforts did or did not impact the amount of hours being claimed in current litigation. Lastly, billing records must be sufficiently detailed so as to support any potential future fee claim.

Ellen C. Bodenmiller Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Tampa Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Ellen C. Bodenmiller Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Tampa Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department