Marshall Dennehey provides comprehensive defense representation to insurance companies, their insureds, and self-insured corporations across the full spectrum of casualty liability matters. With a deep bench of experienced litigators practicing throughout our 19 offices, our Casualty Department is well positioned to manage cases of any size or complexity—from routine slip-and-fall claims to high-exposure, multi-party litigation.
Our casualty defense practice encompasses 20 distinct areas of law, reflecting the breadth and depth of our experience. We regularly defend clients in matters involving automobile liability, product liability, premises and retail liability, and general liability—practice areas that have formed the foundation of our casualty litigation work since the firm’s inception.
What sets Marshall Dennehey apart is the scope of specialized defense services offered within our Casualty Department. In addition to core liability matters, our attorneys provide focused representation in niche and emerging areas, including amusement, sports, and entertainment liability; fraud and special investigations; maritime litigation; and trucking and transportation. Attorneys in these practice groups bring extensive experience and are widely recognized as leaders in their respective fields.
Each year, the highly skilled attorneys in our Casualty Department handle thousands of matters nationwide, consistently achieving favorable outcomes for our clients through strategic advocacy and efficient case management.
Casualty Practices
Results
Delaware County Jury Awards Only $500 Each to Plaintiffs Seeking Over $500,000
Defense Verdict Returned After Short Jury Deliberation in High-Exposure New Jersey Trucking Case
Christopher Block and Paul Lanza (both of Roseland) successfully obtained a defense verdict in a trucking accident in New Jersey. The plaintiff claimed that our client merged into her lane at the George Washington Bridge toll plaza causing her to sustain neck and back injuries for which she underwent two spinal surgeries. Our client testified that both of their lanes ended and, because they were required to merge, he had the right-of-way since the front of his truck was ahead of the front of her vehicle. Our accident reconstruction expert confirmed that our driver had the right-of-way and opined that plaintiff was the sole cause of the accident. We also disputed the causation of plaintiff’s alleged injuries based on the very limited property damage to her vehicle, as well as the fact that she had prior, similar injuries. After a little more than an hour of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict finding that our driver was not negligent. The trial team was assisted by associate attorney Haleigh Catalano and paralegal Kelly Dermody who provided critical support with motions in limine and trial management.
Thought Leadership
New Jersey Supreme Court Strengthens the Ongoing Storm Rule in Gallardo v. Walmart
August 24, 2026
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently expanded the protection afforded by the ongoing storm rule, under which commercial property owners generally have no duty to remove snow or ice while precipitation is actively falling absent unusual circumstances or a preexisting hazardous condition. In Gallardo v. Walmart, No. A-65-24 (N.J. July 30, 2026), the court significantly narrowed a common avenue plaintiffs have used to avoid summary judgment, holding that “ordinary efforts” to address winter conditions during an ongoing storm do not become actionable merely because an expert later claims those efforts made the conditions more dangerous. The case arose from a typical winter slip and fall. Mixed precipitation began around 11:30 a.m. Walmart's snow-removal contractor arrived about an hour later and salted the parking lot and walkways. Because accumulation was minimal, ranging from trace to 1/10th of an inch, the contractor did not plow. The plaintiff fell approximately 15 minutes after the salting was completed. The plaintiff did not contend that Walmart failed to respond to the storm. Instead, she argued that Walmart responded improperly. Her expert opined that salting without pretreating the lot caused melting and refreezing that resulted in black ice. That theory survived two summary judgment motions and ultimately persuaded a jury, which returned a verdict of approximately $1.33 million. The Appellate Division vacated the verdict because the jury had not been properly instructed on the ongoing storm rule, but remanded the matter for a new trial. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed in a 4-3 decision and directed entry of summary judgment for Walmart. Applying Pareja v. Princeton International Properties, 246 N.J. 546 (2021), the Court concluded that Walmart's conduct fell within the protections of the ongoing storm rule. Salting a trace accumulation during an active storm was ordinary remediation, not the type of unusual circumstance that could give rise to a duty. The court further held that expert criticism of those efforts was insufficient to change that result. Following Pareja, plaintiffs frequently argued that a property owner forfeited the protection of the ongoing storm rule whenever an expert could identify some alleged flaw in the owner's response to the storm. Gallardo rejects that premise. The decision recognizes that imposing liability based solely on expert criticism of ordinary snow removal efforts would discourage property owners from taking any action during a storm and would undermine the very purpose of the doctrine. The ruling warrants a fresh look at pending winter premises liability cases involving active precipitation, minimal accumulations, mid-storm salting, alleged failures to pretreat, or expert opinions premised on melting-and-refreezing theories. Cases previously viewed as presenting substantial trial exposure may now be stronger candidates for summary judgment. At the same time, Gallardo does not eliminate all potential liability during an ongoing storm. A preexisting hazardous condition or genuinely unusual affirmative conduct may still support the imposition of a duty. Plaintiffs will also likely attempt to distinguish Gallardo based on the nature of the remediation efforts at issue and the specific facts of a case. The bottom line is that Gallardo strengthens the ongoing storm rule by restoring it as a meaningful summary judgment defense. Now, “ordinary” efforts to address winter conditions during an active storm do not become "unusual circumstances" simply because a plaintiff retains an expert to say they could have been done differently
Case Law Alerts
Appellate Division Upholds $250K Verdict, Rejects Challenges to Exemplar Video and Summation Conduct
July 20, 2026
In a personal injury case, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the trial court's decision, including the jury's verdict awarding $250,000 in damages and the denial of defendant's motion for a new trial. Lekhal v. Depasquale, No. A-3024-23, 2026 LX 223242 (Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 30, 2026). The case stems from a rear‑end collision in which the defendant struck the plaintiff’s stopped vehicle at a traffic circle. Liability was admitted before trial, leaving damages as the only issue for the jury. At trial, the plaintiff’s medical expert used an exemplar video of a cervical discectomy performed on another patient, and during closing, plaintiff’s counsel referenced defense expert reports that were not in evidence. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by: (1) allowing use of the undisclosed exemplar surgery video involving a different patient; (2) giving an inadequate curative instruction after plaintiff’s improper summation remarks; and (3) denying a mistrial. The court held that although the video should have been disclosed in discovery, its admission was not unduly prejudicial. The video was brief, silent, and used only to illustrate the expert’s testimony, and it accurately depicted the procedure the plaintiff underwent. The court distinguished cases like Rodd and Macaluso, finding no risk of misleading the jury. As to counsel’s improper summation comments, the court agreed the remarks were inappropriate, but concluded that the jointly‑approved curative instruction sufficiently mitigated any prejudice. Overall, the court found no miscarriage of justice, and the verdict was supported by credible evidence.
