Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice

We convinced the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to vacate a $1.09 billion jury verdict and remand for a new trial.  The court held that the jury had not been properly instructed on the elements of a crashworthiness claim under Pennsylvania law. The court's ruling received press coverage in both The Legal Intelligencer and The Philadelphia Inquirer.

We convinced the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to reverse the trial court’s denial of motions for post-trial relief and to direct entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of our client. The plaintiff was injured while standing unsupported on a moving bus. He lost his balance when the bus accelerated away from a bus stop, grabbed an overhead bar to keep from falling, and injured his arm. The video showed that only the plaintiff lost his balance when the bus started moving. At trial, our client moved for nonsuit and directed verdict, arguing the evidence was insufficient to overcome the jerk-and-jolt doctrine that applies when a passenger is injured on a moving bus. To merit the submission of a jerk-and-jolt case to the jury, a plaintiff must establish a sudden stop or jerk so unusual and extraordinary as to be beyond a passenger’s reasonable anticipation. The Honorable James Crumlish denied the motions for nonsuit and directed verdict and also denied our client’s motions for post-trial relief. Judge Crumlish determined the video evidence presented a jury question under the jerk-and-jolt doctrine and mirrored the plaintiff’s counsel’s characterization of the video evidence in doing so. The Commonwealth Court disagreed. After independently reviewing the video evidence, the Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court and granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict to our client. In doing so, it pointed out that various observations of the trial court “were not supported by the video or testimony.”

We successfully defended the plaintiff’s appeal of a trial court decision sustaining preliminary objections on the grounds of improper venue. This case involved the death of a 19-year-old woman at a university who fell down an 11-story trash chute in an off-campus condominium building. In this mixed negligence and product liability case, we represented two of the multiple defendants, the condominium association and the building management company. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas found that venue was improper in Philadelphia County and ordered that the case be transferred to Centre County. The plaintiff appealed that decision, and the matter was briefed and argued in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The Superior Court, in a precedential decision, affirmed the trial court’s decision and found that there was no abuse of discretion in sustaining the preliminary objections. In support of its decision, the Superior Court found that the plaintiff’s arguments were unsupported by Pennsylvania law. The Superior Court, in finding waiver of an issue, quoted directly from the brief prepared by Kim.

We were successful on appeal of a child abuse determination levied against an Aveanna home health nurse. The three-day hearing was litigated before the PA Department of Human Services. As a result of the court’s order, the nurse’s record of child abuse is being expunged. The matter arose out of the alleged attack of a child-patient by a family dog during home nursing care. It was asserted that the nurse failed to properly supervise and protect the child, and failed to properly respond to the incident when it occurred. We established a lack of definitive proof that the nurse negligently left the child unsupervised. We also called into question the circumstances surrounding the alleged attack, including whether the dog had a known history of aggression, which led to credibility issues on the part of the family member witnesses. Medical experts also testified on the appellant’s behalf to address possible alternate explanations for the child’s injuries. Ultimately, we established that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof, highlighting multiple errors and inconsistencies relating to the investigation as well as the reporting processes. This is a significant outcome in a difficult jurisdiction with many problematic underlying facts (which led to the decision to not call the nurse to testify in her defense). 

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.

We convinced the Commonwealth Court to affirm the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board in favor of our client, the employer, which upheld the workers’ compensation judge’s denial of a claim petition. By memorandum opinion, the court found that the judge’s credibility findings were neither contradictory nor arbitrary and capricious, and the decision was reasoned. The court agreed with the employer that the defense experts’ opinions constituted substantial evidence, also noting that the Social Security Administration’s findings of disability were irrelevant to the issue of work-relatedness. The court concluded that the claimant failed to sustain her burden of proving a work-related injury, and since the causal connection between her “lingering symptoms and her work duties” was not obvious, she was required to present unequivocal medical evidence establishing that connection, which she failed to do.

We obtained reversal of a non-final order in a wrongful death case against a dive captain, dive master and the corporate entity dive companies. A woman drowned while scuba diving on a chartered tour. Following her death, the toxicology report revealed high levels of illicit drugs and alcohol. During the course of litigation, her estate moved for leave to amend their complaint to add a claim for gross negligence and punitive damages, claiming the defendants were grossly negligent for failing to use the buddy system and for allowing the decedent to dive when they knew or should have known she was intoxicated. The estate also claimed gross negligence against the dive master for allowing the decedent out of his eyesight for four to ten minutes during the dive, despite having identified the decedent as requiring “special assistance.” In support of their motion, the estate relied on the police statements, deposition testimony and an expert report. The defendants argued the evidence was insufficient to support the amendment and contended that none of the witnesses knew that the decedent was intoxicated before she dove. In granting the motion, the trial court did not make an affirmative finding that the estate had made a reasonable showing by evidence, which would provide a reasonable evidentiary basis to recover punitive damages. On appeal, the Fourth District agreed with our arguments and reversed on several grounds. First, the Fourth District concluded the trial court applied the wrong legal standard. Second, the court found the estate failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages against the dive captain and dive master. Third, the estate’s proposed amended complaint did not properly allege a claim against the corporate entity defendants. 

We successfully overturned a $1.8 million judgment on appeal in a case that involved the Laidlow exclusion in a workers’ compensation/employers liability policy. The decedent succumbed to heat exhaustion while at work, and the plaintiff alleged the death was due to working conditions the employer knew were substantially certain to lead to injury. Our client, the insurer, offered to defend the employer, but only to the extent of obtaining dismissal of the workers’ compensation claim, which was filed in the wrong forum. The insured rejected the offer, and suit for the injury and coverage claims commenced. At summary judgment, the trial court refused to apply the policy’s clear and prominent Laidlow exclusion barring all coverage for claims in the Superior Court whether alleged as negligent or intentional. The trial court entered judgment in the amount of the arbitration award and awarded defense costs for the Laidlow suit, costs of the declaratory judgment action and interest. The matter went up on appeal. After briefing, but before argument, the New Jersey Supreme Court released the Rodriguez decision, which validated our client’s position on application of the Laidlow exclusion and went even further to hold that the employer’s liability carrier has no obligation to provide a defense for the common law negligence claims filed in the Superior Court. The trial court refused to apply the principles enunciated by the appellate division in the Rodriguez decision and refused to apply the reasoning of a second unpublished appellate court decision directly on point. The trial court simply ignored the cases, reasoning they were unpublished. Prior to oral argument in our matter, the Rodriguez decision was published, and the plaintiffs abandoned the case, settling for nuisance value.

We succeeded in partially dismantling a complex claim against a major health care client. The family of a former in-patient resident who died as a result of complications from the COVID-19 virus filed suit, raising claims that the patient was sexually assaulted while in the care of the hospital and a subsidiary ambulance company. Asked to join the defense team shortly before trial, we effectively discredited the plaintiff’s witnesses throughout the plaintiff’s case-in-chief. At the nonsuit stage, we wholly extricated our client—sealing off any exposure to liability for the large, corporate parent company. Following the jury’s $3.5 million verdict against the remaining defendants, we were engaged as appellate counsel and succeeded in further winnowing the liability exposure. We convinced the trial judge to: (1) deny the plaintiff’s request to reinstate the punitive damages claim based on the trial record; (2) grant a partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict on one claim, lopping a full $700,000 off the jury’s verdict; and (3) outright deny the plaintiff’s motion for delay damages, which had sought to add $742,000 to the jury’s verdict.

We succeeded in striking a $4.1 million default judgment entered in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas by a plaintiff who alleged defective residential construction. We convinced the court that Pennsylvania Prothonotaries and Clerks of Court lack authority to accept a praecipe to enter a default judgment in a specified amount unless the amount is approved by a judge or is a sum certain, meaning that the amount is ascertainable from a confessed judgment or a contract that specifies the amount due. The default judgment had spawned significant coverage litigation by and against the defendant’s insurer.

We successfully defended an appeal from a jury verdict previously secured by members of our Lawyers’ Professional Liability Department in favor of the firm’s client in a legal malpractice case. The plaintiffs initially asserted multiple tort claims and a claim under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, which were dismissed by the trial court upon partial grant of the defense’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case proceeded to trial on a remaining breach of contract claim, resulting in a defense verdict. On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the trial court’s rulings on both the motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion in limine related to evidentiary exclusions. The Pennsylvania Superior Court unanimously affirmed the trial court’s rulings, holding that the tort claims were time-barred and that the plaintiffs had waived their evidentiary argument by failing to properly develop it in their appellate brief.

We successfully defended against the plaintiff’s appeal in the Appellate Division, Second Department. The appeal challenged an order that adhered to a prior ruling by the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which had granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. In our brief, we argued that the appeal should be dismissed due to the plaintiff’s failure to assemble a proper record on appeal. The plaintiff omitted critical documents relied upon by the motion court, including submissions supporting and opposing the defendant’s motion. At oral argument, we persuasively presented the case before a panel of four justices. The Appellate Division ruled in favor of the defendant, dismissing the appeal without reaching the merits. The court reaffirmed that it is the appellant’s responsibility to provide a complete record containing all relevant materials from the lower court. The plaintiff’s failure to do so, the court held, made meaningful appellate review impossible. The decision was unanimous, and no further appeal is available—securing a decisive victory for our client.

We received a favorable decision from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a First Amendment case. The circuit court affirmed the District of New Jersey’s denial of a preliminary injunction in which the plaintiff claimed that federal and local officials violated her First Amendment rights through censorship and retaliation after she posted comments on Facebook. In a published decision, the Third Circuit agreed with our arguments that the plaintiff lacked standing since she could not demonstrate a substantial risk of future harm specific to our client, the former chief of police of North Hanover, NJ, as well as the other co-defendants.   

We successfully defended on appeal the trial court’s grant of compulsory nonsuit in a legal malpractice action following the trial court’s rulings on various motions in limine. The trial court granted our clients’ motions in limine to preclude the plaintiff from introducing into evidence that its attorney sued the wrong parties, that its attorney obtained an uncollectable judgment, and that the plaintiff would have prevailed in a lawsuit against other parties. Following the motion in limine rulings, trial counsel moved for nonsuit—arguing the plaintiff could not carry its burden of proof without the precluded evidence. On appeal, the plaintiff argued the trial court’s evidentiary rulings violated the law of the case set forth in the Superior Court’s decision reversing the trial court’s order sustaining our clients’ preliminary objections and dismissing the amended complaint, and that the trial court erred in granting the motions in limine. The Superior Court rejected both arguments and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to remove compulsory nonsuit. 

We obtained a reversal in the Pennsylvania Superior Court of the trial court’s denial of preliminary objections to venue. We successfully moved in the trial court for certification of the ruling pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(b) so that an immediate appeal from the interlocutory ruling could be taken, and we subsequently prevailed on appeal. The litigation arose from a helicopter accident that occurred in Afghanistan. Both plaintiffs, husband and wife, resided in Arizona. Our client is a Delaware corporation located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, that refurbished the helicopter. The codefendant corporation leased the helicopter to the plaintiff-husband’s employer, which was organized and principally operates in Montana. The plaintiffs’ primary focus in seeking to establish venue was on our client and, in particular, on the fact that it purchased two fabric interiors from a Philadelphia vendor. The Superior Court determined that the business dealings of our client did not constitute actual business conducted in Philadelphia County. It stressed that “doing business with a Philadelphia County company does not amount to doing business in Philadelphia County if the obtained goods, services, or personnel are utilized elsewhere to further the defendant’s business activities.” As to the codefendant, the Superior Court concluded the limited venue evidence pointed to a separate but related corporate entity, and that the evidence failed to show the co-defendant regularly conducts business in Philadelphia County. Because there was no evidence to support the imputation of a separate entity’s contacts with Philadelphia on the co-defendant, venue as to the co-defendant was also improper.

We succeeded in obtaining a per curiam affirmance in the First District Court of Appeal of a final order dismissing the plaintiff’s fire-loss subrogation claim against our client, a tenant in a leased property the plaintiff insured. The First District affirmed the trial court’s finding that the specific fire-loss provisions in the lease shifted the risk of loss to the landlord, the plaintiff’s insured. As a result, our client was a co-insured under the plaintiff’s policy. An insurance company cannot sue its own insured.

Marshall Dennehey’s trial and appellate attorneys were successful in their representation of a national home improvement retail corporation’s tool and truck rental division. Handling the case at both the trial and appellate levels, the defense was successful in convincing the New Jersey appellate court to affirm the trial court’s decision on July 23, 2024. At the trial level, the judge granted our motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the case. The plaintiff had rented a flatbed truck in 2018 to move a cabinet he had just purchased. He alleged that a store employee gave him a set of ramps to use in the truck, but while doing so, they moved and he fell, sustaining serious and permanent injury to his back. The plaintiff alleged he later returned to the store and was told that he had been given the wrong ramps. The panel said that the record included no actual evidence that the ramp did not fit the truck beyond the employee’s saying it was the wrong ramp, or that the ramp slipped because it was incompatible with the truck. Even in his testimony, the panel said the plaintiff did not actually identify any physical cause for the ramp to move. “The dearth of evidence establishing the manner and cause of the slip or slide of the ramp rendered it impossible for the jury to make a reasoned determination as to whether defendant’s purported negligence proximately caused plaintiff’s fall and injuries,” the panel said. The court, therefore, affirmed the case on appeal. 

We successfully represented an insurance company before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The court agreed with our argument that the claimant needed to provide notice of his work-related injury to the defendant insurance company within 120 days of the occurrence of the injury due to his combined status as sole proprietor/owner and also the employee in this matter. The judges distinguished the facts of the case due to the fact that the claimant was a sole proprietor, owner and the only employee of his own business. The court agreed that allowing the claimant to pursue a claim, by claiming that he provided notice to himself immediately when the accident occurred, but did not bother to report the injury to the insurance company for over a year thereafter, would result in an absurdity and put the insurance company at a disadvantage in the investigation of the claim. The court also noted that the definition of “employer” in certain portions of the Act includes not only the actual employer as a business itself, but also the employer’s duly authorized agent or its insurer, if such insurer has assumed the employer’s liability. Since the claimant failed to provide notice to the insurance company within 120 days of his injury, the court held that the Claim Petition was barred. The Claim Petition was dismissed, and the claimant was not entitled to any benefits at all.

We won a decision from the First District Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s decision to grant our client’s motion to enforce an oral settlement agreement. We defended a condominium owners association against a lawsuit filed by several unit owners. The parties went to mediation, during which their attorneys agreed on the settlement terms. However, several of the plaintiff unit owners refused to sign the written settlement agreement. We argued at the trial court that the oral agreement should be enforced because memorializing the agreement in writing was not a material term of the parties’ agreement, and that the parties did not intend for the settlement agreement to only be enforceable upon the execution of the writing. Further, all the material terms of the agreement had been agreed on. The First District Court agreed and upheld the decision in favor of the condominium owners’ association.

We secured an Appellate Division decision affirming the trial court’s order dismissing a fraud and fraudulent concealment case filed against various attorneys and broker dealers. In its decision, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court’s orders and opinions dismissing the case based on entire controversy, collateral estoppel and litigation privilege grounds. In this comprehensive decision, the Appellate Division held that the plaintiff’s claims were mirrored claims that had been fully litigated in a prior proceeding, where our clients either represented the litigants in the first case or were directly involved in the first case as defendants.

Our motion to dismiss was affirmed on appeal after the Ninth District Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff had sued a non sui juris entity by suing a county department in a personal injury suit. The plaintiff initially filed suit against the department, which was later dismissed without prejudice to allow more time to develop the plaintiff’s medical records. When he refiled his suit, he again named a county department as the defendant. We filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that a county department does not have the capacity to be sued. The plaintiff then filed a motion to amend the complaint and again named the county. In our motion to dismiss the amended complaint, we argued that the plaintiff was outside of the statute of limitations and that the change in defendant could not relate back to the originally filed suit. The plaintiff’s argument, that naming the department was merely a misnomer and that the amended complaint should relate back to the original filing, failed and the trial court dismissed the case. After oral argument, the appellate court affirmed the decision.

We secured a victory in a case involving an Article 75 petition seeking to vacate a master arbitration award. Following oral arguments, the court unanimously affirmed the lower court’s decision as neither the lower arbitration award nor the master arbitration award were neither irrational nor contained errors of law or fact.

We secured a unanimous, precedential decision upholding a venue transfer from Philadelphia to Butler County under forum non conveniens, setting a new standard for defendants after a series of appellate reversals.

We prevailed in a unanimous, precedential decision in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which reconciled conflicting case law in the state. The plaintiffs were joined by 55 amici, and our client was joined by numerous construction organizations as amici. The court eventually applied Pennsylvania’s statute of repose to bar construction defect claims brought by homeowners.

We obtained summary judgment in an employment litigation case involving claims of racial and sex-based discrimination. The plaintiff alleged that she experienced a hostile work environment based solely on her race. We were able to prove that there was no evidence to substantiate these claims.

In a unanimous precedential opinion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with our attorneys that a law enforcement officer’s attempted arrest of the plaintiff did not constitute an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Our client was instructed by a neighboring police department to hold a burglary suspect who was subject to a search warrant, but not an arrest warrant. After the officer tried to detain the suspect, he fled, and a fight ensued. While the district court held that the officer’s initial attempt to detain the plaintiff was an unlawful seizure, the Third Circuit accepted our reasoning that no seizure occurred because the plaintiff never submitted to the officer.

The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal our defense team obtained in a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) perceived disability claim, alleging COVID-19 to be a disability under this statute. This employment discrimination claim involved a matter of first impression in New Jersey and established that COVID-19 infection, without more, does not constitute a disability under the NJLAD. A former employee filed suit, asserting perceived disability discrimination under the NJLAD. The plaintiff alleged he was wrongfully terminated based upon his employer’s perception that he had COVID-19. We filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer, asserting the complaint did not set forth a cause of action as COVID-19 is not a recognized disability under the NJLAD. The court granted our motion and agreed that COVID-19 is not a disability under the NJLAD and, therefore, could not be the predicate for a perceived discrimination case. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding the plaintiff’s COVID-19-perceived disability claim failed to plead a viable cause of action under the NJLAD.  

Our appellate attorneys successfully convinced a Philadelphia trial judge to grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict and nullify a $1.8 million jury verdict against a Philadelphia hospital. The case involved a fall in the hospital’s bathroom, and the trial judge determined that the plaintiff’s trial evidence failed to demonstrate that the hospital was responsible for the fall. 

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled in favor of our employer client, holding that it was error to “erase” the 500-week employer credit provided by Act 111 for partial disability benefits paid beginning in 2008, and that the claimant’s 2019 reinstatement to total disability status did not retroactively convert those prior partial disability benefits into total disability benefits.  The claimant’s work injury, a contusion to the low back, occurred in 2006. Based on the results of a 2008 IRE that assigned a zero percent impairment rating, the claimant’s benefits were modified from total to partial. The employer filed a Notice of Change of Workers’ Compensation Disability Status, which was not challenged by the claimant. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Protz, however, the claimant filed a modification petition in 2018, seeking reinstatement of his total disability benefits. The petition was granted, and it was noted at the time that the claimant had not exhausted his 500 weeks of partial disability.  The employer filed a petition for modification, based on the results of a December 2019 IRE performed on the claimant, that was granted by the Workers’ Compensation Judge. The IRE was performed pursuant to Act 111. The parties cross-appealed, and the claimant took the position that Act 111 cannot be applied retroactively to injuries sustained prior to Act 111’s October 24, 2018, effective date and that Act 111 constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative authority. The employer cross-appealed the judge’s failure to award a 500-week credit and to suspend the claimant’s benefits.  Citing prior cases that consistently held that Act 111 applies retroactively with respect to a calculation of a claimant’s weeks of partial disability paid prior to the effective date of the Act, the claimant’s appeal was dismissed.  The employer prevailed on its cross-appeal and the Appeal Board’s order was reversed to the extent that it denied a credit for the previously paid weeks of partial disability.   

By Order dated April 5, 2023, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania refused to review the Superior Court’s affirmance of a 2021 nonsuit obtained by Jack Delany in hotly contested litigation stemming from the death of a construction worker. John Hare and Shane Haselbarth handled the appeal along with Jack. The Supreme Court’s ruling ends more than five years of litigation that arose from the construction worker’s death while he was involved in the Pier 78 renovation project on the Delaware River in Philadelphia. The plaintiff sued the general contractor and others involved in the project and ultimately settled with the general contractor for $10.5 million. The general contractor then pursued a contractual indemnification claim against Jack Delany’s concrete subcontractor client on the Pier 78 project. The indemnification claim included the $10.5 million settlement plus approximately $1 million in attorneys’ fees.   The case proceeded to trial in 2021 and, at the close of the general contractor’s case-in-chief, Jack moved for and was granted a nonsuit on the basis that the general contractor was the deceased construction workers’ statutory employer pursuant to the five-element test set forth by the PA Supreme Court in McDonald v. Levinson Steel, 153 A. 424 (Pa. 1930). The case was especially notable because, rather than retaining an attorney to address the reasonableness of the amount of the underlying settlement, which is typical, Jack retained an economist to explain that, based upon his analysis of comparable cases, the settlement amount was excessive. The general contractor appealed the nonsuit. In an unanimous decision dated September 30, 2022, the Superior Court affirmed. The Supreme Court denial of allowance of appeal brings the lengthy litigation to an end.