.

Butler Buchanan, III

Office Managing Attorney

Chair, Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Committee

Attorney Hiring Chair

BBBuchanan@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Butler Buchanan III

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Office

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022

December 1, 2022

by Butler Buchanan, III

As the managing attorney of the Philadelphia office of Marshall Dennehey, I am happy to have this opportunity to tell you about our corporate headquarters office.

Housing the largest contingent of lawyers in the firm, the attorneys in our Philadelphia office protect the interests of our clients in all four of the firm’s departments—Casualty, Professional Liability, Health Care Liability and Workers’ Compensation. The three members of our firm’s Executive Committee—G. Mark Thompson (CEO and President), Howard P. Dwoskin (Chairman of the Board of Directors and Treasurer) and Craig S. Hudson (Senior Vice President and Assistant Treasurer)—maintain offices in Philadelphia.

In addition to our attorneys, many of the backroom operations of the firm are handled by personnel in the Philadelphia office, and all non-lawyer administrative directors are based here including Colleen Bannon, our Chief Operating Officer. Colleen has a storied history with the firm (more than 40 years!), and before her promotion to COO, she was a practicing shareholder and also held the positions of Director of Human Resources and Director of Litigation Support. With oversight for our 19 offices across seven states, she is in frequent consultation with members of the Executive Committee and all of our office managing attorneys.

Frank Stransky, Chief Financial Officer, is housed in Philadelphia, along with Pattie Day, Director of Billing and Accounting. Between the two of them, all issues concerning billing, accounting and finance are managed firmwide.

Nané Pr’Out, Director of Information Technology, is also housed in the Philadelphia office. Nané manages a team of over 40 IT professionals who provide support for all operations of the firm. From time to time, some attorneys questioned whether we needed such a large IT department. When COVID–19 hit in March of 2020, thanks to the IT Department, we were able to have over 1,100 employees connected and working from home in less than one week. After that, those same attorneys were saying, “I am so happy that we have such a big IT Department.” Our IT team is first rate and does all that it can do to facilitate the practice of law at Marshall Dennehey.

Karen Williams is Marshall Dennehey’s Director of Human Resources. She and her team provide all manner of support in reference to a myriad of human resources issues, in addition to managing the firm’s comprehensive benefit program. They also facilitate our annual United Way giving campaign.

Joseph Goldshear and Jennifer Becker currently serve as Co-Directors of Marketing & Business Development at the firm. Joe has been in that role for 14 years and will be stepping down at year-end 2022, when Jennifer will take over the role in full. We are fortunate that Joe will remain with the firm as a Senior Advisor, to provide assistance to Jennifer as she progresses through her first full year as director. Backed by a creative and impressive group of marketing and public relations professionals, the marketing team works hard to promote the good works of our individual attorneys and the firm as a whole.

Lisa Ricchezza is our Director of Paralegal Services with oversight for our approximately 130 paralegals spread throughout our 19 offices. Lisa travels to the various offices and provides training, direction, assistance and guidance to our paralegal team. Our paralegals are an integral part of Marshall Dennehey and provide first-rate, cost-effective representation on behalf of our clients.

Christopher Hansen is the firm’s Director of E-Discovery and Litigation Support. In the cyber world, the management of documents in a litigation setting can be a massive undertaking. Getting these documents into a format in which they can be reviewed, and also arranging for relevant documents to be presented at trial, is often beyond the technical capabilities of our lawyers. Fortunately, Chris and his team provide ample guidance in that regard.

Lawrence Schempp is our Director of Professional Development. Larry arranges a number of associate training events across the firm each year that provide advice and direction on how to succeed in protecting our clients’ interests. Larry also orchestrates an in-house mock trial academy each summer where eight senior associates are selected to try a case in the mock trial courtroom of our Philadelphia office. Our summer law clerks serve as the jury, and seasoned trial lawyers at the firm serve as faculty. Participants are critiqued in the areas of opening statements, direct and cross-examination, and closing arguments. While the participants find the trial to be somewhat nerve-racking, they always express gratitude for the learning process and experience. Lastly, Larry oversees the provision of CLE credits in each of the seven states where the firm maintains offices. The content of the CLEs is wholly relevant to civil defense litigation practitioners.

Sandy Caiazzo is Marshall Dennehey’s Director of Administrative Services. Sandy manages all administrative assistants in the firm as well as their supervisors and managers. She also serves as the firm’s Lateral Integration Coordinator. Like COO Colleen Bannon, and many other employees of the firm, Sandy has never worked any place other than Marshall Dennehey. She joined the firm out of high school and has been with us for over 40 years.

Jay Rothman is General Counsel to the firm and is assisted in that role by Shane Haselbarth. Both Jay and Shane have only worked at Marshall Dennehey. Prior to being named General Counsel, Jay had a robust practice in the Professional Liability Department. Shane is an accomplished member of our firm’s Appellate Advocacy Practice Group and maintains that work while assisting Jay on the many issues that confront the firm. We are lucky to have two such astute lawyers to protect the firm.

Now that I have highlighted several firm leaders housed in the Philadelphia office, I want to highlight a few Philadelphia office attorneys.

John Hare is a member of the firm’s Board of Directors and Chair of our Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group. John has litigated more than 500 appeals in the state and federal appellate courts and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. John formerly served as Chair of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee. He has edited and co-authored two books on Pennsylvania appellate courts. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Life and Law in the Commonwealth, 1684-2017 was published by the Pennsylvania State University Press in 2018, and Keystone of Justice: The Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1895-1995 was published by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 2000.

Mohamed Bakry is a young shareholder at Marshall Dennehey. An active member of the volunteer community, Mohamed serves as Chair of the Board of Justice for Our Neighbors of the Delaware Valley, an immigration legal service nonprofit organization. He is also the Second Vice President of Board of Directors of The Lawyers’ Club of Philadelphia, a social and educational organization working to promote comradery among members of the bench and the bar in the Philadelphia area. Mohamed is passionate about, and dedicated to, the principles of diversity and inclusion, and he currently serves on Marshall Dennehey’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Committee. He is also a member of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, an association of vetted and premier defense and corporate counsel and industry executives dedicated to leading the profession by advancing the principles of integrity, professionalism and civil justice.

Melanie Foreman, associate in the Casualty Department, is heavily involved in the Philadelphia legal community. She is a board member of Community Legal Services of Philadelphia (CLS) and co-chairs its Leadership Council and Board Development Committee. Melanie is the founder and Chair of Justice Rising, a young professionals’ organization associated with CLS that is dedicated to access to justice for all. She is also a member of the Board of Governors of the Philadelphia Bar Association and sits on the association’s Large Firm Associates Committee. Finally, Melanie was recently invited to join the Board of Trustees of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation, which is the charitable arm of the Philadelphia Bar Association.

We are proud of John, Mohamed and Melanie, and the many other attorneys in our Philadelphia office and elsewhere who are doing incredible things that are law-related, but also outside of the practice of law at the firm.

Lastly, the Philadelphia office, and our neighboring offices throughout the region, reached a significant milestone in 2022. For the 10th consecutive year, Marshall Dennehey was selected one of the Philadelphia region’s “Best Places to Work” by the Philadelphia Business Journal. The award recognizes the firm’s achievements in creating a positive work environment that attracts and retains employees through a combination of benefits, working conditions and company culture. We are proud of this recognition, as expressed by our President & CEO, G. Mark Thompson: “Ten years is a long time to be recognized for anything and the fact that our employees remain engaged and happy makes us think we must be doing something right. A lot has happened in the past decade, but through it all we have emerged stronger together. I could not be prouder of our firm and all of our employees, and we will continue to do whatever we can to continue to improve our working environment so that all of our employees have the opportunity to succeed.”

I hope that this overview provides you with some idea of the scope of the operation in the Philadelphia office that I am so privileged to participate in managing. I also hope that each of you reading this has a wonderful and peaceful Holiday Season and I wish you a happy and healthy 2023.

*Buck is the managing attorney of our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, office. He can be reached at 215.575.2661 and BBBuchanan@mdwcg.com.

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey 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. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey. 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

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

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

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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

News

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

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.

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

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.

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.