.

Michael A. Packer

Office Managing Attorney

Co-Chair, Insurance Services Practice Group

MAPacker@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Michael A. Packer

Michael is the firm's supervising attorney for the Insurance Services Practice Group in the state of Florida and a member of the firm's Board of Directors. The group assists insurers in all aspects of a coverage dispute, including responses to civil remedy notices of insurer violations, pre-suit investigations and coverage evaluations, declaratory judgment and bad faith litigation. In particular, Michael defends property insurers throughout Florida in first party coverage matters, where he responds to claims for sinkhole, windstorm, fire, mold, theft, and water losses. Michael's group also conducts examinations under oath and SIU investigations.

In both the state and federal courts, Michael has participated in a number of bench and jury trials through verdict, all of which resulted in either a defense verdict or a verdict which was less than the amount demanded.

In addition, Michael is often asked to serve as coverage and bad faith counsel in third party actions, including monitoring the defense of litigation, as well as trial. As part of this role, Michael is often asked to draft reservation of rights, declinations and prosecute declaratory relief actions.

Michael has substantial experience in alternative dispute resolution, having represented clients in thousands of mediations, neutral evaluations and arbitration proceedings. Michael routinely advises clients on the evaluation and resolution of multi-claimant matters, often times where the injuries and damages exceed the available policy limits.

Over the past ten years, Michael and his group have defended in excess of three hundred sinkhole lawsuits, as well as hundreds of other first party lawsuits. The group has defended a number of cases through trial and appeal, including four sinkhole trials during recent years. In addition, the group represents more than ten statewide insurance carriers in first party property damage lawsuits, including many of the largest insurance carriers in Florida.

Michael routinely speaks at regional and nationwide industry conferences, specifically addressing coverage issues under first party property and third party liability policies. He has also presented a number of seminars on auto negligence, uninsured motorist and bad faith claims. Michael frequently travels around the country to provide in-house claims seminars with claims professionals. In addition, he has lectured on defending first party property damage claims including sinkhole and mold claims, which included review and analysis of claims handling procedures, as well as recommendations for the same. Michael has also written numerous articles for industry publications addressing Florida-specific claim handling issues and insurance companies’ rights and obligations in defending first and third party coverage actions.

In 1994 Michael earned his Bachelor of Arts from the State University of New York at Albany. Subsequently, Michael obtained his juris doctor in 1997 from the University of Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, Florida, where he graduated cum laude.

Michael is married to Nicole Packer and they live with their three children in Weston, Florida.

    • University of Miami School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 1997)
    • State University of New York at Albany (B.A., 1994)
    • Florida, 1997
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida, 1997
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida, 2006
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida, 2007
    • Florida Trend Legal Elite, NOTABLE Managing Partner (2025)
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • South Florida Legal Guide - Top Lawyers in Insurance Litigation Defense (2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021)
    • South Florida Legal Guide – Top Lawyers in Insurance Litigation (2014)
    • South Florida Legal Guide - Top Lawyers (2013 )
    • Florida Trend's Legal Elite - Top Up and Comer (2012)
    • American Bar Association
    • Defense Research Institute, 2013
    • Florida WIND, 2012, 2013
    • The Florida Bar
    • Examinations Under Oath - What Claims Professionals Need to Know to Conduct an Effective EUO, ALM/PropertyCasualty360 Complex Claims Conference, February 26, 2024
    • Investigating a Claim Under a Reservation of Rights - Strategies for Managing Claims that May Not be Covered, Florida Defense Lawyers Association’s Florida Liability Claims Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL, June 16, 2022 
    • What You Need to Know After you Go – Parts 1 and 2, CLM Claims College School of Property - Level 1 – Coverage, Virtual, 2021
    • Current Issues and Case Law Affecting the Property Claims Arena, CLM Claims College School of Property - Level 3, Virtual, 2021
    • Covid 19: To Be Property Damage or Not to Be Property Damage, CLM, January 2021 
    • Insurance Coverage and Bad-Faith Insurance Issues Under Florida Law, Marshall Dennehey Florida Claims Symposium - The Best Defense is a Good Offense, Orlando, FL, September 17, 2014
    • Protecting Your Clients' Interest During Settlement, WIND Conference, 2013
    • American Conference Institute Bad Faith Litigation Conference (co-chairperson and lecturer) 2012
    • American Conference Institute Bad Faith Litigation Conference (lecturer) 2011

Results

View all

Defense Verdict for Insurance Carrier in First Party Property, Breach of Contract Dispute in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County

A water heater leak in a garage caused direct physical damage to the property, and our client paid the plaintiffs $956.95 for damages sustained to the garage, after applying the $1,000 policy deductible. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant breached the contract of insurance by failing to fully indemnify them for all the property damage caused by the water leak. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed: (1) the defendant underpaid for the garage by not allowing for “detach and reset of the water heater” in the amount of $600; (2) water from the water heater leak into the garage traveled through the crawlspace of the garage and caused the master bathroom vanity to warp; and (3) there was damage to “one” loose tile located on the toe-kick of the vanity that cannot be matched, requiring the replacement of the entire continuous tile in the home. The plaintiffs claimed total damages in the amount of $52,930.95. We defended the case at trial, arguing that the damages were limited to only the garage. Furthermore, we presented a case to the jury premised upon science, that is, water could not have traveled through the crawlspace of the garage for nine feet and caused damage to the master bathroom vanity, as the plaintiffs claim, without defying the laws of gravity.

Thought Leadership

View all

Defense Digest

On the Pulse… Profile of the Insurance Services – Coverage and Bad Faith Litigation Practice Group

June 30, 2026

The Insurance Services – Coverage and Bad Faith Litigation Practice Group delivers comprehensive, end-to-end litigation and advisory services to national and global insurance carriers. While the group is deeply experienced in coverage and bad faith litigation, its capabilities extend well beyond traditional legal defense. Through its broader Insurance Services practice, the firm has built a dynamic suite of innovative, client-focused solutions tailored to the evolving needs of insurers operating in complex and high-risk environments. With attorneys present in jurisdictions spanning from Florida to New York, the practice group approaches each matter with a strategic, solutions-oriented mindset. Its attorneys focus not only on resolving disputes, but on proactively managing risk by developing creative strategies to control exposure, avoid litigation where possible, and transfer risk effectively. In doing so, the group remains mindful of the broader business implications for its clients, including the protection of brand integrity and competitive positioning within the insurance industry. The group’s experience encompasses the full spectrum of insurance products, including commercial, personal property, and casualty policies, professional liability coverage, health and life insurance, and workers’ compensation policies. This breadth allows the team to provide nuanced, industry-specific counsel across a wide array of coverage issues and claims scenarios. Leadership within the practice group reflects both geographic reach and subject-matter depth. Todd Leon, who has offices in Philadelphia and Mount Laurel, serves as the Northeast head, with Allison Krupp of the Camp Hill office serving as vice-chair. Michael Packer, based in Fort Lauderdale, oversees operations in the Southeast, with Danielle Robinson, also of Fort Lauderdale, as the vice chair. Together, they guide a team of approximately 20 attorneys who provide consistent, coordinated legal services across jurisdictions. The Southeast team, in particular, brings a sophisticated understanding of the unique legal and regulatory challenges associated with Florida’s insurance landscape. Across all offices, attorneys are supported by a strong network of associates, paralegals, and professional staff, enabling the group to efficiently manage even the most complex coverage disputes, including first-party property and automobile litigation. The group also benefits from the leadership and insights of Jim Cole, the former group chair, who is now the Director of the firm’s Professional Liability Department. The practice group has a proven track record of successfully representing insurers in both state and federal courts in first-party and bad faith litigation and in providing opinions on coverage issues in jurisdictions around the country. Its attorneys are well-versed in the intricacies of institutional discovery, including corporate designee, apex, and employee depositions, as well as the litigation tactics often employed by plaintiffs to drive settlement pressure. By offering strategic guidance at every stage – both pre-litigation and during active disputes – the group helps clients evaluate coverage positions, mitigate risk, and make informed decisions about resolution or trial. When litigation is unavoidable, the firm’s seasoned trial attorneys are prepared to vigorously defend even the most complex and high-exposure matters. Beyond litigation, the group offers a wide array of services designed to support insurers’ operational and strategic objectives. These include coverage consultation, coordinating counsel services, catastrophe (CAT) operation coverage strategies, and specialized support for first-party property and automobile claims. The team also provides SIU and fraud-related investigation and litigation services, indemnification and risk transfer strategies, and comprehensive bad faith evaluation and defense. Additional offerings include policy language review, representation before administrative and insurance departments, claims practices consultation, and institutional discovery support. The group also works closely with clients to develop best practices, internal guidelines, and customized training and educational programs tailored to the full range of insurance products. With 19 offices across Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Florida, Ohio, and Connecticut, and an active presence in neighboring jurisdictions such as Maryland, West Virginia, and Kentucky, the Insurance Services Practice Group is positioned to provide seamless, regional, and national support. Its integrated approach ensures that clients receive not only skilled legal representation but also practical, forward-looking guidance designed to meet the demands of today’s insurance landscape.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Fourth DCA Rules a Notice of Intent to Litigate is “Suit-Specific” and a Notice must be Filed Prior to All Lawsuits Filed on a Single Claim

June 11, 2026

Moreno v. People’s Trust Insurance Company, (May 13, 2026) This case involved a property damage claim in which the homeowner argued she was not fully indemnified. She provided the insurer with a notice of intent to litigate prior to filing suit. The lawsuit was filed, but later voluntarily dismissed. The homeowner then filed an identical lawsuit, but did not provide a second pre-suit notice before doing so. The insurer moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing it was entitled to a second pre-suit notice of intent to litigate, because notice is “suit-specific,” not “claim-specific.” The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice.  On appeal, the homeowner argued the statute’s reference to “a notice” for a “suit” is “claim-specific” not “suit-specific.” The Fourth DCA found that the requirement for pre-suit notice was in fact “suit-specific” and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case. The Fourth DCA reasoned that §627.70152(3) requires a pre-suit settlement demand that itemizes damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, not a simple notice of a claim. The Fourth DCA further reasoned that the settlement demand provided before the second suit would also include damages incurred after the first lawsuit was filed. Thus, the court reasoned, adopting the homeowner’s “claim-specific” argument would frustrate the core purpose of the statute, which is to allow the insurer to evaluate an updated settlement demand. 

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.

Thought Leadership

PA Superior Court Upholds Household Vehicle Exclusion in Favor of Erie When Stacking Was Not Implicated

Key Points: A household vehicle exclusion was upheld under an Erie Policy when the estate of deceased insureds sought UIM coverage when the insureds were occupying a motorcycle owned by the insureds, but the motorcycle was not covered by Erie’s Policy. The PA Superior Court distinguished Gallagher v. GEICO, in which Gallagher, unlike the Erie insured, had recovered UM/UIM, thus rendering the "household exclusion" an impermissible waiver of stacking. Here, with no UIM recovery from any source, the issue of stacking, much less impermissible waiver of stacking, never arose. In sum, the household vehicle exclusion is a valid exclusion when stacking is not implicated. In the Pennsylvania Superior Court case of Erie Ins. Exchange v. Estate of Kennedy, 350 A.3d 219 (Pa. Super. 2025), the court upheld Erie’s denial of coverage under the household vehicle exclusion in the Erie Policy when the insureds were occupying a motorcycle not covered under the policy. Dennis and Elissa Kennedy, Erie insureds, died in a single-vehicle motorcycle accident, with Dennis driving. Dennis insured the motorcycle with Progressive, which paid its liability limits to Elissa, after which Elissa sought household stacked Erie UIM coverage. Erie denied coverage under its "household exclusion" applicable to vehicles owned by insureds, but not covered by Erie's policy. The trial court granted judgment in favor of Erie on the ground that such benefits were barred by an exclusion applicable when an insured has suffered damages while occupying a vehicle owned by a relative and not covered under the policy, i.e. the household vehicle exclusion. Finding that the exclusion was valid, the PA Superior Court affirmed. The court found the facts of the case and policy exclusion analogous to the case of Erie Ins. Exchange v. Mione, 289 A.3d 524 (Pa. 2023). In Mione, a motorcyclist was injured in an accident with another vehicle whose driver was both at fault and underinsured. The motorcyclist's insurance policy did not include UM/UIM coverage. However, the motorcyclist had two household policies covering other vehicles, including stacked UM/UIM coverage, as well a household vehicle exclusion. UM/UIM benefits were therefore denied, and the motorcyclist argued that the exclusion was invalid because it did not comport with the statutory waiver requirements of Section 1738. The PA Supreme Court rejected the argument, explaining that UM/UIM coverage could not be procured in the "first instance" under the motorcyclist's household policies as “[F]or a household vehicle exclusion to be acting as an impermissible de facto waiver of stacking, the insured must have received UM/UIM coverage under some other policy first, or else is not implicated at all.” The motorcyclist had not received any UM/UIM benefits under his own motorcycle policy, so there was nothing for the UM/UIM benefits of the household policies to "stack on" to, and as such, Section 1738 was not implicated. The court also distinguished the case from Gallagher v. Geico, 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2009), in which a motorcyclist was injured in an accident caused by another driver who was underinsured. The motorcyclist had purchased two policies, each of which provided stacked UM/UIM benefits. The first policy covered only the motorcycle; the second covered two automobiles, while also containing a "household exclusion," which precluded UM/UIM benefits. The PA Supreme Court held that the exclusion was invalid because the resulting waiver of UM/UIM coverage did not comport with the statutory requirements of Section 1738. The court distinguished the Kennedy’s case from Gallagher as the Kennedy’s were attempting to stack UM/UIM coverages from (a) the Progressive Motorcycle Policy under which Dennis Kennedy was the only insured, and (b) the Erie Policy under which Dennis Kennedy and Elissa J. Kennedy were the insureds. Crucially, the court found that the party from whom the right to stack UM/UIM benefits under the Erie policy was derived (Elissa J. Kennedy) was not an insured under the motorcycle policy. In other words, no one paid for Elissa J. Kennedy to receive UM/UIM benefits under the motorcycle policy, so that policy afforded her no contractual right to such coverage in the first instance. The court further reasoned that the "miscellaneous vehicle" exclusion in the Erie Policy was valid because the insured, Elissa J. Kennedy, had not first received UM/UIM coverage under Dennis Kennedy's Motorcycle Policy. In conclusion, the Court found Gallagher inapposite, and Mione compelled the affirmance of the trial court's ruling upholding Erie’s denial of coverage pursuant to the household vehicle exclusion. Christin is a Shareholder in our King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, office. She can be reached at 610-354-8279 or clkochel@mdwcg.com.

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

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.

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.