.

Brad is a shareholder in the Casualty Department and concentrates his practice on the defense of companies and individuals in a wide array of civil litigation matters. He has successfully litigated cases involving automobile and trucking liability, premises liability, breach of warranty, insurance coverage/bad faith litigation and general liability matters. Brad’s experience includes efficiently managing files from inception through settlement or verdict. Brad also has significant alternative dispute resolution experience, having resolved hundreds of cases through mediation and arbitration throughout Pennsylvania.

Additionally, Brad handles fraudulent claims as part of our Fraud and SIU group. He conducts Examinations Under Oath, depositions, mediations, and appears for bench trials and arbitration hearings.

Brad has been awarded an AV® Preeminent™ rating by Martindale-Hubbell. Throughout his career, he has been active in the preparation of articles in his fields of concentration and has given numerous presentations to clients regarding various casualty defense-related matters. 

In addition to his legal practice, Brad is involved with several organizations throughout the community. Brad is a USA Hockey On-Ice official and officiates games at the high school and college levels throughout the tri-state area. Brad performs legal pro-bono work on behalf of the Wills for Heroes Foundation, providing wills and powers of attorney to police officers and EMTs. Formerly, Brad served as a founding member of the Board of Directors for the Gift of Adoption Fund-Pittsburgh Chapter, a national charitable organization.  

Brad is a 2010 graduate of West Virginia University. He received his juris doctor from the Case Western Reserve University School of Law in 2013, where he served as an executive editor of the school’ Journal of Law-Medicine. While in law school, Brad received a merit-based academic scholarship for outstanding academic performance.
 

    • Case Western Reserve University School of Law (J.D., 2013)
    • West Virginia University (B.S., 2010)
    • Pennsylvania, 2013
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 2013
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2021-2025)
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch©, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (2024-2025)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2023-2026)
    • Allegheny County Bar Association
    • American Bar Association
    • Gift of Adoption Fund, Board of Directors
    • West Virginia University Alumni Association, Pittsburgh Chapter, Board of Directors

  • Obtained a defense verdict following a jury trial related to an automobile accident.  Brad’s client admitted to liability for causing the accident at trial. Despite this admission, during trial Brad was able to convince the jury that Plaintiff’s limited tort selection applied and that her alleged injuries did not breach the limited tort threshold. The jury returned a verdict against Plaintiff on the limited tort issue, resulting in a complete defense verdict.

    Secured an extremely favorable verdict following a jury trial solely on damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff alleged a collision with the Defendant’s large truck caused serious head and neck injuries. Through cross examination, Brad was able to demonstrate the Plaintiff’s injuries were largely related to significant pre-accident and degenerative medical conditions. At the conclusion of trial, the jury awarded Plaintiff less than four percent of her settlement demand.

    Negotiated a mid-trial settlement equivalent to less than six percent of the Plaintiff's demand on behalf of an automotive dealership. The Plaintiff sought compensation for spinal injuries allegedly caused by a hazardous condition on the company's premises. Extensive discovery revealed the Plaintiff had a pre-existing history of spinal issues unrelated to the incident in question. Additionally, evidence from social media and surveillance was leveraged to undermine the credibility of the Plaintiff's allegations. The case was settled just prior to opening statements.

    Successfully defended a national carsharing company, resulting in a dismissal of all claims. The case involved a multi-party suit arising out of a commercial auto accident. Through aggressive pleading, Brad obtained a dismissal by arguing that both Federal and State law provisions prohibited any claims against the company. Brad additionally argued the facts as set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to establish any duty and/or breach on the client’s behalf.

    Obtained a favorable settlement in seven-figure lawsuit, involving a tractor-trailer accident. Following significant discovery, Brad was able to secure a settlement significantly below Plaintiff’s initial demand, after uncovering pre-accident medical records, which identified various inconsistencies related to Plaintiff’s alleged medical damages.

    Secured a dismissal of Plaintiff's claims via a Motion for Summary Judgment in a lawsuit involving a six-vehicle commercial automobile accident. Brad argued Plaintiff's own deposition testimony, along with documentary evidence failed to establish any negligence on the part of the Defendant.

    Secured a favorable verdict in a non-jury trial based on an alleged breach of an automobile warranty. Following testimony, the judge awarded less than ten percent of Plaintiff’s pre-trial settlement demand.

    Successfully defended an insurance company in multiple direct lawsuits brought by an insured. Plaintiff alleged property damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff also alleged, in a separate lawsuit, that the insurance company failed to comply with the terms of a warranty and acted in bad faith. Brad argued that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring these suits, while also disputing the merits of Plaintiff’s allegations. The cases were dismissed via a Motion for Judgment Non Pros and a Motion for Summary Judgment.

    Secured a dismissal of all claims via Summary Judgment on behalf of a national grocery store chain. Plaintiff alleged she was caused to fall in the store due to an accumulation of a wet substance. Deposition testimony and written discovery revealed that Plaintiff could not identify what the substance was, how long it had been present, or whether the store had notice of the substance. Based upon this the Court granted the store’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

    Negotiated a favorable settlement in a six-figure UIM/Bad Faith case. Discovery and deposition evidence revealed Plaintiff had pre-existing injuries, which were not initially reported. Research further revealed Plaintiff working a second, under-the-table job during her alleged disability period. This information eventually led to a successful settlement on behalf of our client.

    Secured a dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims in a product liability lawsuit brought against a national manufacturer. Plaintiffs alleged they sustained property damage due to a defective washing machine. Brad argued that Plaintiffs could not establish the requisite expert testimony to pursue a specific design theory; or the requisite documentary evidence to proceed under a malfunction theory. As a result, the Court granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

    Obtained Summary Judgment on behalf of an insurance agency in a seven-figure negligent procurement case. The trial court’s ruling was based upon a determination of a lack of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, and causation on behalf of both the insurance agent and agency.

    Successfully defended a global food service corporation against a Plaintiff alleging various violations under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 42 U.S.C. 1985. In our client’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Brad argued Plaintiff’s section 1981 right to contract claims were invalid as she failed to demonstrate any contractual impairments. Brad argued Plaintiff’s section 1985 claims were barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, as the alleged conspiracy involved two employees of the same company. Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed in their entirety.

    Obtained a defense judgement at arbitration on behalf of an apartment complex in a case involving a Plaintiff's suit for invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Brad argued that Plaintiff's claims for invasion of privacy were legally insufficient, as there existed no proof of an actual intrusion. He further argued that Plaintiff could not pursue her negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, as she suffered no physical harm.

    Obtained multiple defense judgments on behalf of various auto manufacturers involved in breach of warranty lawsuits.

    • Defense Litigation: Key Concepts and Current Developments, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, March 2026
    • Defense Perspectives: Bodily Injury and Bad Faith Claims, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, April 2025
    • Discovery 2.0: Understanding and Utilizing New-Age Discovery Sources, ClaimsXChange Annual Conference, October 2024
    • Northeastern Casualty and Worker’s Compensation Litigation Trends, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, June 2024.
    • Auto and Premises Liability Case Strategy and Evaluation, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, May 2024
    • Pennsylvania and New Jersey Defense Litigation Updates and Strategies, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, June 2023
    • Pennsylvania Transportation Claim Valuation, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, September 2022
    • Continuing Impact of COVID-19 & Case Law Updates, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, March 2022
    • Best Practices for Claim Log Notes, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, June 2021
    • Special Damages in Auto and Trucking Claims in Pennsylvania, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, January 2020
    • Arbitration – Practice and Procedure, Marshall Dennehey Internal Presentation, June 2019
    • Social Media Evidence, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, February 2017
    • Premises Liability Claims in Pennsylvania, Client Seminar, June 2015
    • UIM/UM & Bad Faith Law Updates, Client Seminar, May 2014  

Results

View all

Successfully Defended a National Car-Sharing Company in a Multi-Party Suit

We successfully defended a national car-sharing company, resulting in a dismissal of all claims. The case involved a multi-party suit arising out of a commercial auto accident. Through aggressive pleading, we obtained a dismissal by arguing that both federal and state law provisions prohibited any claims against the car-sharing company.

Defense Shaves $85K Demand to $4K Jury Verdict in Personal Injury Case

The plaintiff claimed she sustained serious head and neck injuries following a two-car motor vehicle accident. At trial, we demonstrated that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries were largely related to pre-accident and degenerative medical conditions. The defense also highlighted the fact this was the plaintiff’s third personal injury lawsuit in a 15-year span. On the day of trial, the plaintiffs reduced their demand from $85,000 to $75,000. At the conclusion of trial, the jury returned a verdict of only $4,000.

Thought Leadership

View all

PAMIC Pulse

From Instagram to the Jury: Lessons in Digital Evidence Authentication

October 1, 2025

In an era when nearly every potential litigant carries a digital record of their daily life, social media evidence has become a staple in both criminal and civil proceedings. Text messages, direct messages, posts, and even audio files shared over social media platforms can provide critical insights into liability, damages, and credibility. Yet, as the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Floyd, 2025 WL 1905168 (Pa. Super. 2025) demonstrates, such evidence cannot be taken at face value. Its admission requires proper authentication, and failure to meet these standards can result in exclusion—even when the evidence seems obviously relevant.

The Legal Intelligencer

Pennsylvania’s Expanding Vicarious Liability Standard

February 27, 2025

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Jan. 31, 2025, ruling in Coryell v. Morris represents an expansion in the state’s approach to vicarious liability for franchisors. In Coryell¸ the court upheld a jury verdict that found Domino’s Pizza vicariously liable for the negligence of a franchisee’s delivery driver. The case arose out of an auto accident involving the plaintiff and a delivery driver of the franchisee. Following the accident, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the delivery driver, the franchisee (Robizza, Inc.), and Domino’s Pizza.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

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. 

Result

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

News

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

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.

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.

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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

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.