.

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

CLM Magazine

Paul Miller's Law: Direct and Punitive Transportation Exposure

March 18, 2026

As we turn the calendar to another year, Paul Miller’s Law (Pennsylvania’s Distracted Driving Law) moves from a newly enacted statute into an established feature of Pennsylvania’s transportation law. What began in 2025 as a phased-in regulatory change, now enters 2026 as a fully enforceable rule that drivers, employers, and insurers are expected to understand and account for. While Paul Miller’s Law does not represent a fundamental shift in liability standards, it does add an additional point of consideration for companies whose operations include employee driving. Understanding how the law may be referenced in practice will be necessary to managing exposure, guiding internal policies, and driving defense strategy in transportation litigation. Read the full article here: Paul Miller’s Law: Direct and Punitive Transportation Exposure/Articles/CLM Magazine. 

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.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars