.

Bradley D. Remick

Co-Chair, Product Liability Practice

Portrait of Bradley D. Remick

Brad is the co-chair of Marshall Dennehey’s Product Liability Practice and concentrates his practice on the defense of complex product liability and fire cases for small, medium and large (Fortune 500) manufacturing companies and their distributors. For almost 40 years, Brad has been defending the manufacturers of tools, electrical components and batteries, scaffolding and lifts, cranes, tires, paint, automatic doors, industrial machinery, backhoes, road graders and other heavy equipment. He also defends manufacturers of complex heat exchangers, chemical pumping systems and other industrial systems as well as mechanical and electrical contractors.

Brad has been an active firefighter for nearly two decades and has extensive training in fire science, origin and cause investigation, arson investigation, fire suppression, fireground tactics and rescue.  His background in firefighting has given him additional insight into the defense of cases on behalf of manufacturers of electrical components, electricians and others alleged to have started fires.  Brad holds over 70 different fire and rescue certifications and has served as the president of the Penn Wynne – Overbrook Hills Fire Company and the Lower Merion Fire department.  He has served as a line officer for Penn Wynne.

Brad is a supervising attorney in the firm's Product Liability Practice. As such, he fields questions from attorneys throughout the firm regarding substantive legal issues relating to product liability. Brad manages associates in the development of their practices.

He has authored seven treatises on Pennsylvania Products Liability law along with numerous other articles for a variety of publications. He has been a guest lecturer at a number of legal conferences as well as Temple University Fox School of Business, Temple University (main and Ambler campuses), Drexel University, Hahnemann University, The University of Wisconsin and Villanova University School of Law.

    • Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (J.D., 1987)
    • Kenyon College (A.B., with honors, 1984)
    • New Jersey, 1987
    • Pennsylvania, 1987
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1987
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2015
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 2022
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 1987
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 1987
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants (2026-2027)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2008-2026; Top 100 in Philadelphia, 2024)
    • President of the Board of Directors, Lower Merion Township Fire Department, 2020 – 2024
    • President of the Board of Directors, Penn Wynne - Overbrook Hills Fire Company, 2017 - 2024
    • Vice President of the Board of Directors, Lower Merion Township Fire Department, 2019 - 2020
    • Board of Directors, Lower Merion Township Fire Department, 2017 – 2024
    • Board of Directors, Penn Wynne-Overbrook Hills Fire Company, 2014 - Present
    • Alumni Association Distinguished Service Award - Kenyon College, 2017
    • Insurance Society of Philadelphia, Outstanding Contribution Award, 1999
    • National Liberty Museum Public Service Heroes Awards of Valor, PECO Volunteer Firefighter Award, 2010
    • Volunteer of the Week, Main Line Times (July 31, 2008)
    • PVLA Certificate of Merit, 1987, 1988
    • Recipient of National Geographic/NEH Scholarship for Archaeological Work in Central America, 1983
    • American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) elected 2011
    • American Chemical Society, 2011
    • Defense Research Institute
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Product Liability Committee
    • Philadelphia Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts (PVLA)
    • Alumni Council Member, Kenyon College, 2017 - 2020
    • Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM)
    • Propane Gas Defense Association (PGDA)
    • Defense of manufacturer of industrial power press which amputated fingers of 32-year-old female plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged defective design of a power press used for stamping metal components. The plaintiff was operating the press as she had been taught by her employer. She reached into the press to remove a stamping when the press made an unintended cycle, crushing her hand. At trial we were able to prove that faulty repairs made to the press by the employer are what caused the repeat cycle rather than the original design of the press. Defense verdict. 
    • Defense of manufacturer of complex heat exchanger which was alleged to have caused an explosion at an explosives plant in the northern desert of Chile. The heat exchanger was manufactured in New Jersey, shipped through the Panama Canal to the Pacific and then south to the plant which was located in Mejiones, Chile. Extensive discovery both in the United States and in Chile revealed the cause of the failure was the chemical content of the water being used at the plant. The plant's water treatment facility failed to bring the chemical content in the feed water to within the limits called for in the system specifications. The case was dismissed prior to trial. 
    • Represented the manufacturer of an AC motor in bathroom fan/light fixture alleged to have started a fire and destroyed a restaurant. The plaintiffs alleged the fixture was defectively designed. Through forensic examination of the remnants of the fan/light fixture and its internal components, as well as the burn patterns left in the area of the fire, we were able to prove the fixture did not cause the fire. Defense verdict. 
    • Defense of electrician whose work was alleged to have started a fire. Client was called out to do electrical work in a building on an emergency basis. The electrician ran wires through a drop ceiling and was alleged to have nicked a part of the wire on the metal struts. The exposed wire allegedly ignited the surrounding combustibles, starting the fire. The fire was discovered five hours after the electrician left the premises. We were able to establish by a thorough examination of the wiring and the fire scene that the origin of the fire which was approximately 40 feet from where the client did his work. Defense verdict. 
    • Defense of manufacturer whose delivery driver was responsible for an auto accident. The plaintiffs were a mother and daughter who were allegedly injured when a van operated by the delivery driver struck their vehicle broadside. Mediation occurred and our client offered what the mediator recommended. The plaintiffs rejected the offer, and the case was tried. Liability was conceded. Verdict was 17 percent of pretrial settlement offer. 
    • Defense of manufacturer of automatic pedestrian door which allegedly knocked a woman down. Careful analysis of the accident and the plaintiff's design claims were rebutted by expert testimony. Defense verdict. 
    • Represented tire manufacturer in case where a tire with 3,000 miles on it blew out. We were able to establish that the cause of the tire blow out was a puncture of the tire, which occurred when the plaintiff ran over a nail and not due to any defect with the tire. Defense verdict. 
    • Dismissal prior to trial on behalf of the manufacturer of power strip which allegedly caused a house fire. Through careful examination of the remnants of the power strip and exemplar power strips, we were able to show that, while close, the internal components were dissimilar enough that the alleged manufacturer was not the actual manufacturer of the allegedly defective strip. 
    • Obtained summary judgement on behalf of a homeowner in a 10 Plaintiff negligence action arising from a house-fire.  In granting summary judgement, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas agreed that Plaintiffs’ failure to secure a cause and origin expert was fatal to their case, where the fire was alleged to be electrical in nature and thus outside the purview of the average juror. 
    • Recent Product Liability Pretrial and Trial Experience in Pennsylvania (State and Federal Courts) – Panelist, Pennsylvania Defense Institute (PDI) Webinar, February 17, 2026
    • Dispute Resolution and Releases, Guest Lecturer, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, November, 2025
    • Trials in a Pandemic World, 2022 Door & Access Systems Manufacturers Association (DASMA) Annual Meeting, January, 2022
    • Investigating Claims During COVID-19, webinar presented by Jensen Hughes and Marshall Dennehey, May 5, 2020
    • Civil Legal Process, Drexel University, January, 2020
    • Mindfulness and You, Philadelphia Bar Association, 2019
    • Tincher: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly - and Why You Should Care, DASMA Annual Meeting, January 2017
    • Negotiation Strategies, University of Wisconsin, School of Business MBA Program, December 2016
    • A Christmas StoryDangers of Christmas Tree Fires, DRI Fire Science and Litigation Conference, Scottsdale AZ, November 2016
    • The Role of Business & Government on Society, West Chester University - Department of History, April 2016
    • When the Other Shoe Drops: Dealing with Punitive Damages, DASMA Annual Meeting, January 2016
    • Personal Injury Law from Start to Finish: Theories of Liability and Defenses, Sterling Educational Seminars, Philadelphia, PA, July 14, 2015
    • The Role and Training of the Firefighter in Evidence Preservation, DRI Fire Science and Litigation Conference, 2013
    • Dealing with Recalls, the Emotional Toll, DRI Annual Products Liability Conference, Hand and Power Tool SLG, 2012
    • Firefighters and Evidence Preservation, the Inside Story, DRI Annual Products Liability Conference, Fire and Casualty SLG, 2012
    • Investigation of Industrial Fires, NYC, 2011
    • Law for Non-Lawyers, Temple University Fox School of Business, September 2011
    • DRI Products Liability Conference - Co-Chair Hand and Power Tool SLG, 2011
    • Dealing with Foreign Manufactured Products, DRI Products Liability Conference, 2011
    • Avoiding the Obvious During Trial, DRI Products Liability Conference, 2010
    • DRI Products Liability Conference, Hand and Power Tool Special Litigation Group, 2010
    • Law 101 - Legal Basics for Non-Lawyers, Temple University Fox School of Business, 2009; 2010
    • The Rise and Fall of a Mental Health Monster, August 2008
    • From China and Beyond, Mealey's Product Recall Conference, Washington, DC, December 2007, Co-Chair
    • Liability Concerns in the Real World, Temple University Fox School of Business, 2007
    • Legal Process, Temple University Fox School of Business, 2006; 2007
    • Selection and Retention of Experts, DRI Annual Products Liability Conference, 2004
    • The Exportation of American Cultural Norms and the Geopolitical Symbiology Thereof, Temple University, December 2004
    • Taking and Defending Depositions, Lorman Educational Services, 2003; 2004; 2005
    • Negligence in the Hospitality Industry, Temple University, 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005
    • Tort Law for Non-Lawyers: Depositions, Liability and Negligence Issues, Temple University Graduate School of Tourism and Hotel Management
    • Instructor, Products Liability
    • Taking Depositions in Pennsylvania, Lorman Educational Services, August 2002
    • Pennsylvania Products Liability, 7th edition. Published by ALM.  International Standard Book Number 979 – 8 – 89803 – 090 - 2 (print) and 979 – 8 – 89803 – 091 – 9 (eBook)  1052 pages, 2026
    • "The More Things Change...Pennsylvania Products Liability Law,"The Legal Intelligencer, March 29, 2024
    • Bringing Fire Investigation and Prevention Into the Future, CLM Magazine, April, 2022
    • Pennsylvania Products Liability, 6th edition. Published by ALM.  International Standard Book Number 978—1-58852-594-9 (print) and 978-1-58852-603-8  (eBook) 604 pages, 2021
    • Pennsylvania Products Liability, 5th edition. Published by ALM.  International Standard Book Number 978-62881-424-8 (print) and 978-1-62881 – 425-5 (eBook) 590 pages, 2019
    • "Fire, Fire Everywhere: An Insurance Attorney and Volunteer Firefighter Offers Advice on Handling Fire Scenes,"CLM Magazine cover story, December 2018
    • Getting What You Need in Key Fire Depositions”, DRI The Voice, Volume 13, Issue 37, September 2018, co-author
    • Pennsylvania Products Liability, 4th Edition, Published by ALM. International Standard Book Number 978-1-62881-424-8 (print) 978-1-62881-425-5 (e books) 590 pages, 2017
    • "A Christmas Story: Tree Fires -- Prevention and Investigation," For The Defense, November 2017
    • Pennsylvania Products Liability, 3rd Edition, Published by ALM. International Standard Book Number 978-1-62881-237-4 (print) 978-1-62881-238-1 (e books) 584 pages, 2016
    • "Who Knew: Get to Know Brad Remick, Shareholder, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin,"Litigation Management, Winter 2016
    • Pennsylvania Products Liability, 2nd Edition, Published by ALM. International Standard Book Number 978-1-62881-053-0 (print) 978-1-62881-054-7 (e books) 566 pages, 2015
    • Tincher Supplement to Pennsylvania Products Liability, 1st Edition, Published by ALM, 2015
    • Pennsylvania Products Liability, 1st Edition. Published by ALM.  International Standard Book Number 978-1-57625-8385 (Print) 978-1-57625-7982 (eBook)  431 Pages, 2014
    • Articles in DRI Semi-Annual Newsletter, Defense Digest, Lift Equipment Magazine, Lift Leader Magazine
    • "Out of the Frying Pan... Strictly Speaking," DRI Happenings, Vol. 8, Issue 2, May 2011
    • "How To Start A Technical Rescue Program," edit/photographs, Fire Engineering Magazine, September 2009
    • "Pixel This: A Photographer Switches to Digital," Philadelphia Lawyer Magazine, Summer 2009
    • "Trial By Fire," The Philadelphia Lawyer, Winter 2008
    • "Hey Arnoldy!! The Superior Court Says OSHA Preempts State Tort Law (Sometimes)," Defense Digest, Vol. 13, No. 4, December 2007
    • Pennsylvania Products Liability Handbook, 2001; 2003
    • "Is Seeing Believing? Manipulation of Digital Images," Hand and Power Tools, Spring 2000
    • "Informing the End User: Sending Safety Improvement Notifications Helps Product Liability Suits," Lift Equipment, June-July 2000
    • "Top-Notch Testimony: Five Lessons For Hiring An Expert Witness Lift Equipment," Lift Equipment, June-July 1999
    • "The Rental Defense: How To Help Protect Your Company During An Accident-Related Lawsuit," Lift Equipment, January 1999
    • "Congress Works to Reform Product Liability Law," Lift Equipment, Aug-Sept 1995
    • "Post Sale Duty to Warn Doctrine and Product Liability Law," Lift Equipment, Aug-Sept 1995
    • "Calling All Aerial Lift Operators: It's Folly to Ignore Safety Features," Lift Equipment, Apr-May 1995
    • "Walton v. Avco: The Fun, and the Duty, Never Stops," Defense Digest, January 1995
    • "Pulling Away from the Wreckage," Defense Digest, Spring 1994
    • "Malfunction Theory Defense Refinements," Defense Digest, Spring 1993
    • "Claim Against Defective Pitcher, Strikes Out," Defense Digest, Fall 1993
    • "Is PA Still the Keystone State for Products Liability Litigation?" The Legal Intelligencer, January 6, 2017
    • Firefighter, Penn Wynne/Overbrook Hills Fire Company (Lower Merion Fire Department) 2006 - present 
    • Lieutenant, Penn Wynne/Overbrook Hills Fire Company (Lower Merion Fire Department), 2015 - 2018
    • Member, Southeastern Montgomery County Technical Rescue Taskforce 2013 – 2022
    • Penn Wynne – Overbrook Hills Fire Company Board of Directors 2009 - present, President of the Board of Directors 2017- present  
    • Lower Merion Township Fire Department Board of Directors 2017 – present; Vice President of the Board of Directors 2019 – 2020; President of the Board of Directors 2020 – present  
    • National PROBOARD Firefighter I Certification, 2007 National PROBOARD Firefighter II Certification, 2009
    • Pennsylvania State Firefighter I Certification, 2007 Pennsylvania State Firefighter II Certification, 2009
    • Montgomery County (Pennsylvania) Fire Academy: Introduction to the Fire Service, 2006 Fireground Support, 2006 Exterior Firefighting, 2007 Interior Firefighting, 2007
    • Pennsylvania State Fire Academy: Fireground Support, 2006 Exterior Firefighting 2007 Interior Firefighting 2007 Incident Safety Officer, N.F.A. 2008 Structural Collapse Operations Level I, (SCOA) 2008
    • FEMA/National Fire Academy: Certification: Firefighter Safety - Calling the Mayday
    • Pennsylvania State Fire Marshall's Office: Arson Investigation and Scene Preservation for First Responders 2009
    • American Red Cross: Certified: CPR/AED, 2006, 2007; First Aid Certification Certified: CPR/AED for Healthcare Providers 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016
    • FDNY (Fire Department of New York) Special Operations Symposium 2010 FDNY (Fire Department of New York ) Fires and Emergencies Symposium 2011 FDNY Disaster Planning & Response, 2013 FDNY (Fire Department of New York) Multiple Alarm Command & Control, 2012
    • Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission: Water Rescue for the First Responder Awareness Level Certification 2009 Ice Rescue Awareness Level Certification 2010 Ice Rescue Operations Level Certification 2010 Ice Rescue Technician Level Certification, 2010
    • Bucks County Community College: Natural Gas, Propane, Carbon Monoxide Seminar, 2007 Attack and Backup Lines Seminar, 2007 Lockout/Tagout Seminar, 2007 Ladder Company Review Seminar, 2007 Search and Rescue Seminar, 2007 Highway Safety Seminar, 2008 Incident Safety Officer, N.F.A., 2008 HAZMAT Awareness, 2008 HAZMAT Operations, 2008 Fire Behavior Seminar, 2008 Structural Collapse Operations Level I, (SCOA) 2008 Rope/High Angle Rescue I, 2009 HAZMAT Operations Refresher, 2010 NFPA 1006 Core Requirements for Technical Rescue Technician, 2011, Clandestine Lab Awareness for the First Responder, 2012
    • Montgomery County Fire Academy: Basic Vehicle Rescue Awareness Level, 2007; Basic Vehicle Rescue Operations Level, 2007; Basic Vehicle Rescue Technician Level, 2007
    • U.S. Department of Homeland Security/FEMA Emergency Management Institute: IS-00100 (Incident Command System) IS-00200 (ICS for Single Resources and Initial Action Incidents) IS-00700 (National Incident Management Systems - NIMS) IS-00800.A (National Response Plan - NRP) IS 300 (Incident command), 2009
    • Albert Einstein Healthcare Network Center for Special Operations and Training: ICS 300-Intermediate ICS for Expanding Incidents, 2009
    • Special Vehicle Rescue Awareness Level Certification, 2013; Special Vehicle Rescue Operations Level Certification, 2013; Special Vehicle Rescue Technician Level Certification, 2013
    • 1006 General Requirements for the Professional Rescue Technician, 2013
    • Proboard Vehicle & Machinery Rescue Technician, 2015
    • Trend Rescue Awards, 2016
    • Pump Operations Certification, 2016

Results

Summary Judgment Obtained in House Fire Case

We obtained summary judgement on behalf of a homeowner in a 10-plaintiff negligence action arising from a house fire. In granting summary judgement, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas agreed that the plaintiffs’ failure to secure a cause and origin expert was fatal to their case as the fire was alleged to be electrical in nature and, thus, outside the purview of the average juror.

Denial of Nationwide and Pennsylvania-Wide Class Certification Affirmed

Our attorneys prevailed on an appeal to the Third Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ request for class certification in a product liability and warranty action. The named plaintiffs are several property owners and communities of common ownership who allege they have yellow-jacketed, corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) transporting natural gas through their structures. The flexible, yellow CSST is the modern heir to the black iron pipe formerly universal in the building industry. The flexible CSST offers advantages, including ease of installation, but the plaintiffs asserted there are latent product defects that risk failure in the event an electrical surge makes its way to the tubing, either from an in-house event or nearby lightning strike. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ request for nationwide and Pennsylvania-wide class certification of their disparate claims because of a failure of record proof on the elements of ascertainability of a sufficiently numerous class, predominance of typical and common claims, and an inability to demonstrate proof of liability and damages issues on a class-wide basis. The Third Circuit granted the plaintiffs’ request for interlocutory review of the class certification decision, but nevertheless affirmed the district court’s ruling on largely the same bases. Without passing on the merits of the product defect claims, the Third Circuit recognized that there was no basis to grant class-wide treatment given the differences in everything from notification to putative class members, liability and damages proofs, and the law governing claims. The denial of class certification was affirmed, and the case will proceed on an individual basis only.

Thought Leadership

The More Things Change ... Pennsylvania Products Liability Law

March 29, 2024

We were certain that the Azzarello standard, the artificial distinction between negligence and strict liability, was going to fade to some extent and strict liability defendants were going to be afforded the opportunity to present evidence that was relevant to their defenses. Instead, rather than adopting the Restatement (Third) of Torts, the court surprisingly adopted the risk utility and consumer expectation tests that were first developed in California.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Our Product Liability Practice Group

December 1, 2021

For almost five decades, Marshall Dennehey has maintained an experienced and sophisticated group of trial attorneys involved in product liability litigation. The product liability landscape has evolved continually since first arriving on the scene in the 1970s. In the intervening forty-plus years, we have successfully represented numerous product defendants, as our defense attorneys have kept abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints and, of course, evolving technology.  The co-chairs of the Product Liability Practice Group, Bradley Remick and Vlada Tasich, have over 50 years of combined experience in handling product liability cases for a myriad of domestic and international product manufacturers, involving virtually every conceivable type of consumer or industrial product. Brad has authored six treatises on Pennsylvania product liability. The demands of a defense product liability practice are such that attorneys must make certain that they are up-to-date on the latest case law. Federal and state appellate and trial court decisions directly impact the defense of product liability defendants. In that respect, we have been at the forefront, providing guidance to clients and collaborating with peers to coordinate broader defense strategies as legal landscapes have shifted in this area of law.  For example, in 2014 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), upending nearly 40 years of prior strict liability precedent. Under earlier case law, a product was defective if it lacked any element necessary to make it safe for its intended use. Jurors were told that a manufacturer was a guarantor of its product’s safety. Tincher expressly rejected these standards, acknowledged that it was for the jury to decide if a product was unreasonably dangerous, and adopted two alternative standards for demonstrating defect: the consumer expectations test and the risk-utility test. While the core legal framework for analyzing if a product is defective changed, many other longstanding product issues were left unresolved; the Tincher court leaving it to future cases where the common law could develop “within the proper factual contexts against the background of targeted advocacy.” The plaintiffs’ bar generally rejected the sweeping nature of the court’s decision, which was a positive development for product defendants. They also influenced efforts by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute to fashion plaintiff-friendly suggested standard jury instructions that, by and large, held on to the principles rejected by Tincher. Marshall Dennehey attorneys were at the forefront of concerted efforts by the defense bar to draft alternative suggested jury instructions that more fairly follow the law. Our trailblazing lawyers, on behalf of our clients, also targeted cases for trial where a number of these alternative instructions were adopted by Pennsylvania courts as more accurate statements of the applicable legal standards post Tincher.  Our practice group makes certain that our attorneys are keenly aware of legal changes involving product liability. We employ every avenue of defense available to our clients in order to successfully and fairly defend their products before a jury. Our experienced and sophisticated trial attorneys prepare and handle a variety of complex product liability litigation, including the representation of major product manufacturers, distributors and other manufacturers through insurance carriers. The wide variety of cases and clients we represent evidences the level of experience and sophistication that our clients have come to expect in their defense. Over the years, our attorneys have handled thousands of product liability matters, in all of the jurisdictions to which our regional practice extends. The practice includes defense of accidents and alleged failures of all types, including, for example: A broad variety of vehicle products including automobiles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles and trucks, as well as the component manufacturers and suppliers for those products. Consumer goods and appliances. Drug and dietary supplements. Combining its resources with its legal and medical malpractice groups, the Product Liability Practice Group defends cases involving pharmaceuticals, biologics, compounding pharmacies and medical devices. Recreational equipment, including helmets and exercise equipment. Industrial and manufacturing equipment of all sorts and all sizes, ranging from small generators to large electrical components that provide electric service to municipalities.  Building equipment and structures, including all the components involved therein. Elevators and escalators. Fire suppression equipment and systems. Mold and contamination issues.  Asbestos and toxic tort claims.  Consumer products of all varieties. Marshall Dennehey’s product liability practice also includes multi-district litigation, class actions, and commercial claims arising from allegedly poorly performing and/or defective products and/or their components. The attorneys in this practice group are recognized leaders in this area of the law. They frequently speak at national, regional and local seminars, and they are published in their field. Several have been elected as Fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Their memberships include: Product Liability Advisory Council, Product Liability Committee of the Defense Research Institute, International Association of Defense Counsel, Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel, the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Trial Lawyers of America. Marshall Dennehey recognizes the advantage available to defense counsel by employing the resources of its clients, who have the best expertise pertaining to their product, and then supplementing that expertise with our extensive expert bank to select the appropriate forensic and/or technical expert. Our entire focus is directed at presenting the product to a jury in a persuasive and understandable manner so as to achieve a defense verdict. The next decade will surely see further change, as emerging technologies continue to reshape our world and product liability law continues to evolve. Marshall Dennehey remains at the forefront of the current generation of practitioners, and we are poised and prepared to enhance the defense of product manufacturers into the future. *Brad, chair of the Product Liability Practice Group, and Vlad, co-chair of this group, are shareholders and work in our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office. They can be reached respectively at 215.575.2762 or bdremick@mdwcg.com and 215.575.2659 or vxtasich@mdwcg.com.   Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 5, December 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Not So Fast. . . The Limitations of the Pennsylvania RELRA in Plaintiffs’ Civil Actions Against Real Estate Broker and Licensee Defendants

Much has been made of the importance and weight of the Pennsylvania Real Estate Licensing and Registration Act, 63 P.S. §§ 455.101, et. seq. (RELRA or Act). After all, a real estate broker generally cannot recover any commission absent a signed agreement that complies with RELRA. But can a plaintiff rely on RELRA as a distinct cause of action in a civil action as to a real estate broker or licensee defendant? The Superior Court has emphatically held that he or she cannot. In the unpublished opinion P. Perez Real Est. Holdings, LLC et. al. v. Home Sale Real Est. Servs., Inc., et al., No. 256 MDA 2025, 2025 WL 35389888 (Pa. Super. Ct. December 10, 2025), the Superior Court held that the Act “does not contemplate private actions for money damages as an enforcement mechanism and consequently, does not create a private cause of action.” citing Schwarzwaelder v. Fox, 895 A.2d 614, 620 (Pa. Super. 2006). While the Act authorizes the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, State Real Estate Commission, to regulate the conduct governed by RELRA, the Act alone does not create a stand-alone legal cause of action as to a broker-defendant in a civil action. See P. Perez, citing Schwarwaelder at 620. Nor can it be stated that RELRA creates or imposes any legally cognizable duties on real estate brokers or licensees. While the Act contains and refers to general concepts of duty (e.g. the agent must “exercise reasonable professional skill and care which meets the practice standards required by this act” and “to deal honestly and in good faith” 63 P.S. §§606.1 (a)(1),(2), or the broker has a duty to the buyer of property to take “action that is consistent with the buyer’s interest in transaction.”  63 P.S. §§606.3 (1)), these general concepts are secondary to the duties imposed by the required written agreement between the broker and consumer. For example, in P. Perez, a case in which the buyers-plaintiffs argued that the real estate broker failed to investigate recent legislation that would affect buyer’s intentions to convert the property to commercial space, the agreement between buyer and broker contained the following provision in the “Buyer’s Due Diligence” clause: Buyer acknowledges that Brokers, their licensees, employees, officers or partners have not made an independent examination or determination of the structural soundness of the property, the age or condition of the components, environmental conditions, the permitted uses, nor of conditions existing in the locale where the property is situated. . . Accordingly, the broker defendants expressly disclaimed any duty to buyers to inform them or determine whether any applicable zoning classifications, laws, or ordinances in the township applied to the properties in question. Moreover, the Superior Court refused to read provisions of the Act into the Agreement, citing Skiff re Buss, Inc. v. Buckingham Review, LP, 991 A.2d 956 (Pa. Super. 2010). In defending civil actions it is important for the defense attorney to identify any causes of action predicated solely on RELRA. Preliminary objections may be warranted to the extent that the plaintiff asserts RELRA as a stand-alone cause of action for monetary damages, a position struck down by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in P. Perez.  Moreover, any attempt to create or heighten duties as to the broker defendants may be countered by the general proposition that the courts will not inject the vague concepts of “reasonable professional skill” or “good faith” where the written agreement has express provisions regarding the duties of the parties. Ironically, although RELRA is an important Act with which all realtors, brokers, and licensees should be familiar to guarantee that their commissions are in fact timely paid, it is not a strong stand-alone mechanism for a plaintiff’s attempts to recover monetary damages in a civil action.

News

106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America

Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 106 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for this recognition. Additionally, four of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” awards in their respective practice areas and demographic regions. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. For more information, please visit https://www.bestlawyers.com/. OUR 2027 LAWYERS OF THE YEAR Harrisburg, PA Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers Compensation Law - Employers Roseland, NJ Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA Philadelphia, PA Nicholas D. Bowers, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Josh J. T. Byrne, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Jefferey J. Chomko, Insurance Law James H. Cole, Insurance Law John J. Delany III, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Laurianne Falcone, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John P. Gonzales, Employment Law - Management John Hare, Appellate Practice Daniel D. Krebbs, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Michele Punturi, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Bradley D. Remick, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Andrea Cicero Rock, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robin M. Romano, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Daniel J. Ryan, Jr., Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Gary M. Samms, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Christopher N. Santoro, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation -Defendants Josh D. Scheets, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Robert P. Schenk, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robert E. Smith, Insurance Law Robin Snyder, Litigation - Health Care Michael L. Turner, Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Claire Breaux Ventola, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Melissa Devich Cochran, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants  John F. Deasy, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Daniel W. Deitrick, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Douglas C. LaSota, Litigation - Construction; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Joseph V. Lesinski, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants   Christian D. Marquis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia A. Monahan, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Patrick T. Reilly, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Brett C. Shear, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Teresa O. Sirianni, Education Law; Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment Stuart Sostmann, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Scranton, PA Sarah E. Argo, Litigation - Insurance Michael J. Connolly, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Matthew Keris, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants John T. McGrath, Jr., Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants William J. McPartland, Insurance Law John R. Nealon, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Victoria Scanlon, Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Michael A. Sebastian, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Thomas A. Specht, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Suzanne Tighe, Litigation Insurance Harrisburg , PA Casey Alan Coyle, Administrative/Regulatory Law; Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation Brittany E. Bakshi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Shannon P. Fellin, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Allison Krupp, Insurance Law John R. Ninosky, Litigation – Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers King of Prussia, PA  Michael L. Detweiler, Construction Law Joseph L. Hoynoski III, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Gregory J. Kelley, Construction Law, Litigation - Construction Anthony Natale III, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Francis X. Wickersham, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers A. Judd Woytek, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers Erie, PA Patrick M. Carey, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Joel M. Snavely, Health Care Law; Insurance Law New Haven, CT Michael Wrona, Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Bankruptcy  Mount Laurel, NJ David D. Blake, Litigation - Insurance Barbara Davis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lynne Nahmani, Litigation - Health Care John H. Osorio, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John L. Slimm, Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants Roseland, NJ Robert T. Evers, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Julia Klubenspies, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard C. Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia M. McDonagh, Appellate Practice Sunny Sparano, Litigation - Construction Randall S. Watts, Health Care Law New York, NY Tonya M. Lindsey, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Tampa, FL Michael Archibald, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lindsay G. McCormick, Litigation – Construction Orlando, FL Thomas F. Brown, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Dante C. Rohr, Commercial Litigation Fort Lauderdale, FL Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Appellate Practice Patrick M. Delong, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Jacksonville, FL  Heather Byrer Carbone, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Linda Wagner Farrell, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Elizabeth B. Ferguson, Litigation - Construction James P. Hanratty, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Wilmington, DE Sarah B. Cole, Litigation - Insurance Benjamin K. Durstein, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Maria R. Granaudo, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants  Keri L. Morris-Johnston, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Cincinnati, OH Timothy B. Schenkel, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David E. Williamson, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Cleveland, OH Vincent E. Cononico, Litigation – Insurance, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Jillian L. Dinehart, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David J. Fagnilli, Insurance Law Jason P. Ferrante, Health Care Law, Litigation - Health Care Andrew H. Isakoff, Transportation Law Leslie M. Jenny, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendant OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS: ONES TO WATCH Jacksonville, FL Sean J. Reeves, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Orlando, FL Carolin A. Pacheco, Insurance Law Mount Laurel Stacey Gorin, Insurance Law Melville, NY Kimberly Gitlin, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Matthew A. Gray, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Philadelphia, PA Holli K. Archer, Health Care Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law Emily Pritchyk, Commercial Litigation; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Taylor E. Kosko, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Alana Staniszewski, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Michael D. Winsko, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants; Transportation Law King of Prussia, PA Richard Lechette, Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Supreme Court Strengthens the Ongoing Storm Rule in Gallardo v. Walmart

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently expanded the protection afforded by the ongoing storm rule, under which commercial property owners generally have no duty to remove snow or ice while precipitation is actively falling absent unusual circumstances or a preexisting hazardous condition. In Gallardo v. Walmart, No. A-65-24 (N.J. July 30, 2026), the court significantly narrowed a common avenue plaintiffs have used to avoid summary judgment, holding that “ordinary efforts” to address winter conditions during an ongoing storm do not become actionable merely because an expert later claims those efforts made the conditions more dangerous. The case arose from a typical winter slip and fall. Mixed precipitation began around 11:30 a.m. Walmart's snow-removal contractor arrived about an hour later and salted the parking lot and walkways. Because accumulation was minimal, ranging from trace to 1/10th of an inch, the contractor did not plow. The plaintiff fell approximately 15 minutes after the salting was completed. The plaintiff did not contend that Walmart failed to respond to the storm. Instead, she argued that Walmart responded improperly. Her expert opined that salting without pretreating the lot caused melting and refreezing that resulted in black ice. That theory survived two summary judgment motions and ultimately persuaded a jury, which returned a verdict of approximately $1.33 million. The Appellate Division vacated the verdict because the jury had not been properly instructed on the ongoing storm rule, but remanded the matter for a new trial. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed in a 4-3 decision and directed entry of summary judgment for Walmart. Applying Pareja v. Princeton International Properties, 246 N.J. 546 (2021), the Court concluded that Walmart's conduct fell within the protections of the ongoing storm rule. Salting a trace accumulation during an active storm was ordinary remediation, not the type of unusual circumstance that could give rise to a duty. The court further held that expert criticism of those efforts was insufficient to change that result. Following Pareja, plaintiffs frequently argued that a property owner forfeited the protection of the ongoing storm rule whenever an expert could identify some alleged flaw in the owner's response to the storm. Gallardo rejects that premise. The decision recognizes that imposing liability based solely on expert criticism of ordinary snow removal efforts would discourage property owners from taking any action during a storm and would undermine the very purpose of the doctrine. The ruling warrants a fresh look at pending winter premises liability cases involving active precipitation, minimal accumulations, mid-storm salting, alleged failures to pretreat, or expert opinions premised on melting-and-refreezing theories. Cases previously viewed as presenting substantial trial exposure may now be stronger candidates for summary judgment. At the same time, Gallardo does not eliminate all potential liability during an ongoing storm. A preexisting hazardous condition or genuinely unusual affirmative conduct may still support the imposition of a duty. Plaintiffs will also likely attempt to distinguish Gallardo based on the nature of the remediation efforts at issue and the specific facts of a case. The bottom line is that Gallardo strengthens the ongoing storm rule by restoring it as a meaningful summary judgment defense. Now, “ordinary” efforts to address winter conditions during an active storm do not become "unusual circumstances" simply because a plaintiff retains an expert to say they could have been done differently

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. 

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Superior Court Confirms RESDL Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Repose

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently concluded that claims under the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law (“RESDL”) are subject to a two-year statute of repose running from the settlement date. This decision will further assist defending errors and omission claims against real estate agents as it bars any RESDL action commenced more than two years after the settlement date regardless of when the defect was discovered.  In Hollinger v. Deitrich, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 328 (June 23, 2026), the buyers entered into an agreement of sale in April of 2017 to purchase a residential property. The settlement occurred in June of 2017. The buyers reviewed the seller disclosures that revealed the property had a sump pump in working order and a sump pit. The disclosures further noted no water infiltration into the basement, but disclosed rehab, an addition to the property and prior sewage backup.  Shortly after the settlement and closing, the buyers experienced flooding in their basement. In March of 2020, the buyers filed suit against the seller, the buyers’ real estate agent and broker and the seller’s real estate agent and broker alleging various causes of action including a violation of RESDL. The buyers alleged that they sought assurances from the agent defendants that no water infiltration occurred on the property. They further alleged that both agents lived in the area and should have known about the neighborhood water infiltration issues. The trial court granted summary judgment for the seller and the seller’s agents and dismissed the RESDL violation.  Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gidor v. Mangus d/b/a Mangus Inspections, 345 A.3d 629 (Pa. 2025), the court explained that a statute of limitation begins to run from the time of the injurious occurrence or a discovery of the same. However, a statute of repose runs for a statutorily determined period after a definitively established event. Notably, a statute of repose eliminates a cause of action regardless of when the claim accrues. Because of this, a plaintiff may not invoke the discovery rule or other equitable tolling considerations.  RESDL requires that an action for damages, as a result of a violation of this chapter, must be commenced within two years after the date of final settlement. The court found that Section 7311(b) was clear and unambiguous that an action for damages pursuant to this chapter must be commenced within a certain time after a definitely established event that is independent of any injury or discovery of any injury. Since the buyers sued over two years after closing on the property, their statutory claims were time-barred. The court explained that the seller disclosure statement could not support common law or consumer protection claims, as using it would improperly expand remedies beyond the statute’s terms. Accordingly, the court upheld the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that the buyers’ claims under RESDL were barred by the statute of repose.  Accordingly, defense counsel should scrutinize complaints involving RESDL claims to ensure that such claims have been timely brought within two-years of the settlement date. A plaintiff will no longer be able to invoke the discovery roll to expand the time frame.