.

Casey is a member of the Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group, where he focuses his practice on appellate advocacy, post-trial motions, and appeals. A highly accomplished appellate attorney, Casey has extensive experience before Pennsylvania’s highest court. Over the course of his career, he has represented parties and amici curiae in more than 15 appeals before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and has successfully secured discretionary review, widely known as “allocatur,” on six occasions. He has also presented oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court.  Casey is a frequent commentator on appellate matters, contributing insights to The Legal Intelligencer and Law360 on cases pending before Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.

In addition to his robust appellate practice, Casey maintains an active commercial litigation practice and brings significant first-chair trial experience. He regularly represents businesses in high-stakes, “bet-the-company” litigation in state and federal courts nationwide. His experience spans a wide array of matters, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, constitutional challenges, emergency injunctive relief, environmental disputes, restrictive covenant litigation, shareholder disputes, and trade secrets claims. He also represents clients in matters within the original jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

Casey spent six years on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee—the last two years as Chair—where he assisted the Court in the development and administration of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. He is a Board Member of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Historical Society; Co-Chair of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s Amicus Curiae Committee; a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Appellate Advocacy Committee; and a member of the James S. Bowman American Inn of Court.

He is a past President of the Middle District of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association and currently serves as Co-Chair of the Chapter’s CLE Committee. He has also contributed to the federal bench and bar through his service on the Planning Committee for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania’s 2024 Bench/Bar Conference and as a former member of the Third Circuit Lawyers Advisory Committee.

Casey has earned widespread recognition for his exceptional legal acumen and leadership, including selection to the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® for Appellate Practice and Administrative/Regulatory Law. He was also honored as one of The Legal Intelligencer’s “2024 Lawyers on the Fast Track (Small/Midsize)”, a highly selective distinction recognizing just 13 attorneys statewide under age 40. In 2023, Casey was named a Fellow of the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association, an elite honor awarded to fewer than 300 attorneys nationwide. Earlier in his career, he was consistently recognized on the Pennsylvania Rising Stars list (Thomson Reuters) for Business Litigation for ten consecutive years (2015-2024), reflecting his sustained excellence and growing influence in the field.

Prior to entering private practice, Casey served as a law clerk for then-Justice, now Chief Justice Emeritus, Thomas G. Saylor of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for two and a half years. Casey received his juris doctor from Temple University Beasley School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Temple Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law. He received his Bachelor of Arts with distinction, in Journalism from The Pennsylvania State University. While at Penn State, Casey was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society and spent a semester in Washington, D.C., interning for CNN’s Capital Gang.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 2009)
    • The Pennsylvania State University (B.A., 2006)
    • Pennsylvania, 2009
    • New Jersey, 2010
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Commercial Litigation (2027)
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Administrative/Regulatory Law, (2026-2027)
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Appellate Practice (2026-2027)
    • The Legal Intelligencer's Lawyers on the Fast Track, Small/Midsize Winner for Pennsylvania (2024)
    • Pennsylvania Rising Star (2015-2024)
    • Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee, Past Chair
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Historical Society, Board Member
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s Amicus Curiae Committee, Co-Chair
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Appellate Advocacy Committee, Member
    • James S. Bowman American Inn of Court, Member
    • Middle District of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, Co-Chair CLE Committee
    • Middle District of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, Past President
    • Third Circuit Lawyers Advisory Committee, Past Member
    • Representing a group of manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of e-cigarettes in Pennsylvania federal court in a case concerning a constitutional challenge to Act 57 of 2025.  MMA Group 1 Inc. d/b/a Tobacco Hut State College, et al. v. David W. Sunday, Jr., No. 3:26-CV-01385 (M.D. Pa.) (pending). Case featured in Law360 and The Philadelphia Inquirer.
    • Represented Harrisburg City Council in a lawsuit filed by Mayor Wanda R.D. Williams concerning Council’s decision to not fund four positions as part of the City’s 2026 budget.  As part of the lawsuit, successfully defeated a preliminary and permanent injunction sought by the Mayor and successfully obtained dismissal of the lawsuit.  Williams v. Harrisburg City Council, No. 2026-CV-00140 (Dauphin Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl.).  Case featured in PennLive, TheBurg, Fox43, ABC27, and other media outlets.
    • Represented a group of casinos at trial before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court as part of its original jurisdiction and on an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a case concerning the legality of the Pennsylvania Lottery’s iLottery program.  Greenwood Gaming & Entertainment, Inc., et al. v. Department of Revenue, 306 A.3d 319 (Pa. 2023).
    • Represented a Fortune 500 company in CERCLA and RCRA litigation in Wisconsin federal court in which the plaintiff sought nearly $30 million in past and future response costs and declaratory relief.  After a two-week bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiff $0 in past response costs, reduced the plaintiff’s requested allocation of future response costs to the company by more than 40%, and dismissed the plaintiff’s RCRA claim.  Barclay Lofts LLC, et al. v. PPG Industries, et al., 2:20-CV-01694 (D. Wis.).
    • Represented Chester County in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concerning a challenge to the City of Chester’s attempt to acquire the assets of the Chester Water Authority. In re Chester Water Authority, 349 A.3d 892 (Pa. 2026).  Successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to grant review of the appeal.
    • Represented a publicly traded electric vehicle manufacturer against another publicly traded electric vehicle manufacturer in a tortious interference case in Arizona federal court involving more than $25 million in damages.  Lion Electric Company v. Nikola Corporation, 2:23-CV-00372 (D. Ariz.).
    • Represented a company in a lawsuit filed by the Pennsylvania Department of Health before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court as part of its original jurisdiction involving DOH’s attempt to restrict attendance at the Carlisle Car Show pursuant to various orders issued by then-Governor Wolf and then-Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine in connection with the COVID-19 epidemic.  As part of that lawsuit, successfully defeated a preliminary injunction sought by DOH.  Department of Health v. Carlisle Productions, Inc. d/b/a Carlisle Events, No. 350 MD 2020 (Pa. Commw. Ct.).
    • Represented the Scranton Diocese as amicus curiae in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court involving the statute of limitations for civil sexual abuse claims.  Rice v. Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, 255 A.3d 237 (Pa. 2021).  As part of the appeal, provided substantial assistance to the appellants, including assisting them with successfully petitioning the Supreme Court to grant review of the appeal.  Also quoted in the AP article, “Slew of church abuse lawsuits hinges on state court decision” (Aug. 14, 2020).
    • Represented a franchisee against a nationwide franchisor in a breach of contract case pending in Pennsylvania federal court.  As part of the representation, successfully defeated a preliminary injunction sought by the franchisor.  Koala Insulation Franchisor, LLC v. Lotus & The Rooster Holdings Company, et al., No. 1:25-CV-01008 (M.D. Pa.).
    • Representing a former C-suite executive in a civil conspiracy case before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court as part of its original jurisdiction brought by the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner in his capacity as Statutory Rehabilitator of Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (SHIP); the Commissioner is seeking over $500 million in damages.  Humphreys v. Wegner, et al., No. 1 SHP 2020 (Pa. Commw. Ct.) (pending).
    • Represented a nationwide flooring company in a non-competition/non-solicitation/theft of information case against a competitor and three former employees pending in Pennsylvania state court.  Floormax Direct LLC t/b/d/a FloorMax USA v. Rahman, et al., No. 2025-CV-02469 (Dauphin Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl.).  As part of the representation, successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against one of the individual defendants.
    • Representing the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, UPMC, Uber Technologies, Inc., and 15 other organizations as amicus curiae in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Superior Court concerning the scope of the Fair Share Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102.  Holland v. WM Operating, LLC, et al., Nos. 4 EDA 2025 & 3380 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (pending).  Amicus brief featured in the article, “Pa. Biz Groups, Providers, Uber Want Fault Loophole Closed,” Law360 (Aug. 21, 2025).
    • Representing an estate in a breach of contract case pending in Pennsylvania state court concerning an alleged right of first refusal.  As part of the representation, successfully defeated a preliminary injunction sought by the management agent of the properties in question.  JLD Property Management Group, Inc., et al. v. Estate of Harold D. Dumm, et al., No. 2024-CV-07085 (Dauphin Ctny. Ct. Com. Pl.) (pending).
    • Represented the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and other trade associations and businesses as amicus curiae in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concerning the standard of proof required to establish forum non conveniens for a case involving an in-state plaintiff.  Tranter v. Z & D Tour, Inc., 343 A.3d 1106 (Pa. 2025).  Amicus brief quoted in article, “Industry Groups Back Appeal of Ruling They Claim ‘Would Effectively Abolish Venue’ in Pa.,” The Legal Intelligencer (June 17, 2024).
    • Represented a trade association in Pennsylvania federal court in a case concerning a constitutional challenge to the City of Pittsburgh’s inclusionary zoning ordinance.  Builders Association ofMetropolitan Pittsburgh v. City of Pittsburgh, et al., No. 2:22-CV-00706 (W.D. Pa.) (pending).  Complaint featured in the article, “Builders Sue To Stop Pittsburgh’s ‘Inclusionary Zoning’ Rule,” Law360 (May 12, 2022).
    • Represented a school district in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court involving media access to student records. Central Dauphin School District v. Hawkins, et al., 286 A.3d 726 (Pa. 2022).  Successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to grant review of the appeal and presented oral argument to the Court.
    • Represented the putative debtor in an involuntary bankruptcy before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  In re Deluxe Building Solutions, LLC, No. 5:21-BK-00534 (Bankr. M.D. Pa.).  As part of the representation, participated in nine non-consecutive days of evidentiary hearings on the putative debtor’s motion to dismiss.
    • Represented a publicly traded company in an appeal of a multi-million-dollar verdict before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  The Bert Company v. Turk, et al., 298 A.3d 44 (Pa. 2023).  Appeal involved, among other issues, the calculation of the constitutionally permissible ratio of compensatory-to-punitive damages in multidefendant cases.  Successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to grant review of the appeal.
    • Represented a leading provider of integrated specialty services to the global industrial, commercial, and infrastructure markets in Brand Energy & Infrastructure Servs., et al. v. Irex Corporation, et al., No. 5:16-CV-02499 (E.D. Pa.). Regarded as one of the leading cases nationally on the retroactive application of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836.
    • Representing the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, and other trade associations as amicus curiae in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of the statutory damage caps established in Section 8528 of the Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Act. Freilich v. SEPTA, No. 10 EAP 2024 (Pa.) (pending).  Amicus brief featured in the article, “Chamber Tells Pa. Justices To Keep Gov’t Suit Damages Cap,” Law360 (Aug. 5, 2024).
    • Represented a 50-50 owner of a limited liability company in a shareholder dispute before the Centre County Court of Common Pleas and Tioga County Court of Common Pleas. Shaner, et al. v. Hendrick, et al., 2013-4525 (Centre Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl.); Hendrick, et al. v. Shaner, et al., No. 974-CV-2013 (Tioga Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl.).  These companion cases involved the allegation that the other owner breached his fiduciary duties to the company, resulting in over $38 million in damages.
    • Presenter, "Recent Civil Law Decisions and Civil Rule Updates," Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges, Hershey, PA, July 22, 2026
    • Panelist, “2025-2026 Appellate Update," Allegheny County Bar Association 2026 Bench-Bar Conference, June 19, 2026.
    • Presenter, “Nuclear Verdicts, Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements, and Other Hot Topics in Pennsylvania Law,” Association of Corporate Counsel, Central Pennsylvania Chapter, April 2, 2026.
    • Panelist, “Lions, and Tigers, and Nuclear Verdicts, Oh My!  Why Every Healthcare Provider Should Care About Venue Reform, The Recent Epidemic of Outsized Verdicts, and Where We Go From Here,” Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Medical Society 2025 Joint Medical-Legal Conference, November 12, 2025.
    • Panelist, “Pennsylvania Appellate Court Tips, Tricks & Insights from the Bench and Bar 2025,” Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute, October 20, 2025.
    • Panelist, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2024-2025,” Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute, August 22, 2025.
    • Panelist, “Supreme Court Update,” Washington County Bar Association Winter Bench Bar Conference, January 24, 2025.
    • Panelist, “Pointers on Appellate Practice,” Dauphin County Bar Association, January 14, 2025.
    • Panelist, “Appalachia Appeal: Pennsylvania and West Virginia Appellate Roundup,” Babst Calland Client CLE Day, October 16, 2024.
    • Panelist, “Best Practices for Managing Root Cause Investigations,” Energy Mineral Law Foundation’s 45th Annual Institute, June 11, 2024.
    • Panelist, “Befriending the Court: A Primer on Amicus Curiae Practice Before Pennsylvania Appellate Courts,” Allegheny County Bar Association, May 7, 2024.
    • Panelist, “Appellate Review 2023-2024,” Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, April 25, 2024.
    • Panelist, “Transformation of Pennsylvania Civil Law 2016-2013,” Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, September 11, 2023.
    • Panelist, “Top Ten Pennsylvania Appellate Cases,” Allegheny County Bar Association, April 27, 2023.
    • Panelist, “Roundup of Recent and Pending Appellate Decisions in Pennsylvania,” Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, April 18, 2023.
    • Panelist, “Appealing Entertainment: Pennsylvania and West Virginia Appellate Courts Round-Up,” Babst Calland Seminar, February 28, 2023.
    • Panelist, “The New Public Access Regime for Education Records (and Why Life as a School Solicitor Got a Whole Lot Harder),” Allegheny County Bar Association, School and Municipal Law Section, February 16, 2023.
    • Panelist, “Appellate Update,” Washington County Winter Bench Bar Conference, January 20, 2023.
    • Panelist, “Appellate Practice in Pennsylvania,” OGC University 2022, October 20, 2022.
    • Panelist, “E-Discovery: Navigating Obligations and Disputes in the Middle District of Pennsylvania,” Middle District of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, March 24, 2022.
    • Co-Presenter, “Appealing Entertainment: Pennsylvania Appellate Courts Round-Up 2021,” Virtual CLE, December 7, 2021.
    • Panelist, “Proportionality: One Year Later, A Review of the Practical Implications of the Amendments to the Discovery Rules,” Middle District of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, November 2016.
    • Co-Presenter, “What You Will Not Learn from the Rules of Appellate Procedure,” Lancaster County Bar Association, March 2013.
    • Co-Presenter, “What You Will Not Learn from the Rules of Appellate Procedure,” York County Bar Association, April 2013.
    • Co-Author, “Cue Lee Corso: Reprieve From Heightened Standard to Enforce Online Arbitration Agreements May Be Short Lived,” The Legal Intelligencer, February 26, 2026.
    • Co-Author, “Surprise Act: Pending Appeal Involving Last-Minute Amendment Could Presage the Revival of Trial by Ambush in Pa.,” The Legal Intelligencer, December 4, 2025.
    • Co-Author, “Clearing the Air on Public Nuisance and Preemption: A Look at Climate-Change Litigation in Pa. and Beyond,” The Legal Intelligencer, August 1, 2025.
    • Author “Mo Money Mo Problems: As Noneconomic Damages Awards Continue to Rise, So Do Concerns Over Their Constitutionality,” The Legal Intelligencer, June 12, 2025.
    • Author, “Is the Collateral Order Doctrine About to Have a ‘Brat Summer’?,” The Legal Intelligencer, February 7, 2025.
    • Co-Author, “The ‘Roundup’ Round-Up: Will a Recent Third Circuit Ruling Spell the End for Roundup Products Liability Litigation in Pa. State Courts?,” The Legal Intelligencer, December 5, 2024.
    • Co-Author, “Stare Decisis: U.S. Supreme Court’s Willingness to Overturn Longstanding Precedent and its Potential Effect on State Appellate Courts,” The Legal Intelligencer, August 15, 2024.
    • Co-Author, “Blurred Lines: The Ongoing Battle Between iLottery and iGaming,” The Legal Intelligencer, April 29, 2024.
    • Co-Author, “Forum Non Conveniens – Pennsylvania’s Jurisdiction Jigsaw Puzzle,” The Legal Intelligencer, January 27, 2024.
    • Co-Author, “To Infinity and Beyond? Pennsylvania Supreme Court Casts Doubt Upon Presumptive Constitutional Limit for Punitive Damages,” The Legal Intelligencer, November 3, 2023.
    • Co-Author, “It’s Groundhog Day for Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act,” The Legal Intelligencer, May 25, 2023.
    • Co-Author, “Questions Abound Following Right-to-Know Law Decision Involving Student Records,” The Legal Intelligencer, April 20, 2023.
    • Co-Author, “We Don’t Talk About Bruno (But We Should): Why Uncertainty Still Persists Regarding the ‘Gist of the Action’ Doctrine in Pennsylvania,” The Legal Intelligencer, February 2, 2023.
    • Author, “Checklist: Metadata Fields to Consider,” Bloomberg Law, June 18, 2021.
    • Author, “Guide to Understanding, Using, & Analyzing Metadata in Litigation,” Bloomberg Law, June 4, 2021.
    • Co-Author, “Time-Barred Claims of Sex Abuse in Pa.—Litigation and Legislative Developments,” The Legal Intelligencer, March 12, 2021.
    • Co-Author, “Consumer Protection Law Ruling Could Spell Big Trouble for Pennsylvania Businesses,” The Legal Intelligencer, March 4, 2021.
    • Co-Author, “Federal DTSA: New Weapon in the Battle to Protect Trade Secrets,” The Legal Intelligencer, May 27, 2016.
    • Co-Author, “Court Limits Ability to Allege FCA Violations Over Post-Employment Conduct,” The Legal Intelligencer, June 29, 2015.
    • Author, “Pa. High Court Tort Ruling Is Relief To Local Gov’t,” Law360.com, November 24, 2014.
    • Co-Author, “Products Liability Practitioners Anxiously Await Tincher Ruling,” The Legal Intelligencer, November 3, 2014.
    • Co-Author, “CWA Ruling Could Be National Victory For Municipalities,” The Legal Intelligencer, September 30, 2013.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees Due to Lack of Evidence to Support Fee Awarded

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding appellate fees to People’s Trust Insurance Company based upon a lack of evidence to support the attorney’s fee award in RM & Assocs. Consulting, Inc. v. People's Trust Ins. Co., 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 4654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). People’s Trust was the insurer of a residential property that had sustained water damage. RM & Associates Consulting was hired by the homeowner to perform mitigation services at the property. The homeowner assigned post-loss benefits to RM and RM subsequently filed suit against People’s Trust alleging that it had not been paid the money it was owed for the mitigation services. People’s Trust defended the lawsuit on the ground that the policy required the insured to notify the insurer before authorizing repairs so People's Trust could elect to use its preferred contractor. Because the owner did not comply with that provision, People's Trust asserted its liability was limited to the amount that its preferred contractor would have charged for the work, which People's Trust contended was $2,000. People's Trust paid that amount to RM before RM filed suit. People’s Trust filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. RM appealed the summary judgment ruling and the ruling was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate court also granted People’s Trust’s entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, subject to the trial court’s determination of the amount of fees, based upon an offer of judgment made by People's Trust. On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees People’s Trust was entitled to. At the hearing, People’s Trust presented testimony from it’s fee expert, supervising trial counsel and appellate counsel. People’s Trust sought recovery of $24,866.17 for work performed by appellate counsel. The request primarily consisted of work performed in preparation of the answer brief. The fee expert testified that more than ninety hours spent preparing the answer brief was reasonable given the complexity and significance of the underlying issue. The appellate court found that the fee expert’s testimony fell short of meeting the necessary standard of demonstrating that the hours expended were necessary. The appellate court found that the billing records did not serve to cure the deficient testimony, as the billing records did not contain adequate details regarding the specific tasks performed. Rather the records contained entries such as “answer brief” which the appellate court found to be insufficient. The appellate court noted that neither the fee expert or counsel addressed how the prior research and briefing in the parallel litigation informed the work in the instant matter. The appellate court noted this was significant in that a court's attorney's fees award must exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, citing Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based upon the record failing to support the finding of the trial court, the 4th DCA remanded the case to the trial court for a reconsideration and redetermination of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees supported by competent substantial evidence. The 4th DCA reiterated that the fee expert’s focus on the quality of the work and the importance of the work to People’s Trust did not make up for the perceived deficiencies in the position that spending over ninety hours on a single answer brief was reasonable. Whether moving for attorney’s fees or challenging the amount of fees being sought by an opposing party, practitioners should be mindful of the evidence being used to support the claims being made. Parties should pay close attention to whether the hours being sought may be impacted by prior litigation either party may have engaged in. A party must be prepared to address how prior litigation efforts did or did not impact the amount of hours being claimed in current litigation. Lastly, billing records must be sufficiently detailed so as to support any potential future fee claim.

Thought Leadership

First DCA Reverses Excessive Jury Award Unsupported by the Evidence

In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a claim with Universal for damages caused by a water and sewage back up through the plumbing system and existing through multiple fixtures including the washing machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub and toilet. Universal investigated the claim, issued payment for resulting water damage totaling $7,000.00 in actual cash value ($12,000.00 in replacement cost value). The plaintiffs sought additional benefits for work needed to access the below-slab cast iron plumbing system due to the failure of the system from rust, deterioration, corrosion and breaks in the line. Universal denied any additional benefits for access. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed suit. During litigation, Universal sent a plumber to inspect the home and the plumber concluded the pipes were clogged but could be cleaned. The plaintiffs’ plumber testified that the plumbing system needed to be replaced due to holes and openings in the pipes. The plaintiffs introduced two estimates prepared by Triad Restoration services totaling $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value and an executed contract with another company for repairs with the amounts of repair redacted. Since the insurance policy did not provide coverage for repair or replacement of the plumbing system, the jury only had to decide whether the plumbing system needed to be replaced, and if it did, Universal would owe for the access costs; the jury verdict form required the jury to determine both the replacement cost value and actual cash value amounts. The jury asked if it had to rely on the Triad estimates for their amounts. The trial court advised the amount awarded had to be based on the evidence presented at trial and the law given by the trial court. The jury awarded $335,000.00 in replacement cost value or $305,000.00 in actual cash value. Universal motioned for a new trial arguing the amount awarded was unsupported by the evidence and then moved for remittitur. The trial court denied both motions and this appeal followed. The court found that while a jury’s verdict should only be disturbed with caution and discretion, the trial court must give the properly challenged award close scrutiny and determine whether it bears a reasonable relation to the damaged provided, is supported by the evidence, and could have been reached in a logical manner by reasonable means §768.74(3), (5)(d)-(e), Fla. Stat. The court found the trial court did consider the statutory requirements at the hearing on Universal’s remittitur motion and was concerned about a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and injury suffered and whether the award was supported by the evidence, but ultimately denied the motion, reasoning that the jury had been properly instructed to fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs. The court noted the only evidence providing the basis for the jury verdict was Triad’s estimates and those valued the plaintiffs' claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value; no valuation evidence reasonably supported the jury verdict. The plaintiffs argued that the jury was entitled to consider more than the estimates, but the court conveyed the evidence provided did not give the jury a way to reach the amounts they awarded. The court was also not swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument regarding inflation and later price increases, but the court noted that no evidence via the contract, nor testimony regarding increase in labor, material, fuel or construction costs were entered into the record.  The court concluded the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but it may not supply a damages number by speculation. The court did not find any of the plaintiffs’ remaining argument persuasive either. The court reversed the denial of Universal’s remittitur motion and motion for new trial as to damaged and remanded the case. The court ended its opinion with advising the trial court must determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the property measure of damages under the policy and order remittitur in an amount consistent with that determination and the evidence.

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

United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida finds Evidence of Replacement Cost Value is Admissible and Recoverable Even When Repairs Have Not Been Made

The plaintiff filed a claim for damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. It claimed damages were over $24 million, but the carrier accepted partial coverage and paid $8,307.49 for secondary components. The carrier found hurricane damage to the building, but it was below the insurance policy’s $3.6 million deductible. The plaintiff sued for breach of the insurance policy. The carrier argued in a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff could not recover replacement cost value (RCV) because the property repairs had not been effectuated. The policy provided for RCV, but only after the repairs were completed. The carrier argued that because the repairs were not completed, the plaintiff was not entitled to RCV damages. The plaintiff argued the carrier could not withhold the actual cost value (ACV) due, which was the main allegation of the lawsuit, then fault it for not making the repairs to unlock the RCV. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected the carrier’s argument, finding that when an insurer allegedly breached the policy by withholding coverage, it could not hide behind a repair-contingent provision to block the insured from RCV damages at trial. The court found the issue to be whether the contractual language designed to preclude certain coverage until after repairs are completed barred an insured from seeking those damages at trial when repairs were not complete. The court noted the Eleventh Circuit had not resolved this issue and neither side pointed to a definitive answer from the Florida Supreme Court. The court reasoned that it must look to the Sixth District Court of Appeal (6th DCA), which is the court which would have heard this case if it was in state court. The court noted the 6th DCA recently addressed this issue in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 427 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026). The Rodriguez Court found that a breach of contract action is designed to adjudicate not only whether the contract was breached, but also evaluate the damages incurred had the breach not occurred, which the Rodriguez court found to be recovery of the RCV. This court also noted basic Florida contract principles compelled the same result, as a material breach frees the nonbreaching party to suspend its own performance and can demand the full benefit of its bargain, including RCV damages. Finally, the court found the distinction between a full denial and partial denial did not compel a different result. It found the policy required the carrier to acknowledge coverage and pay ACV for all covered damages, and the failure to do that is a material breach, entitling the insured to all of the damages available under the contract, which included the RCV.