.

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

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

Thought Leadership

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

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

Thought Leadership

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

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