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.
Results
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
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.
