.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse… Premises and Retail Liability Group

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 3, June 2021

June 1, 2021

Marshall Dennehey’s Premises and Retail Liability Practice Group, housed within the firm’s Casualty Department, defends national and regional retail chains in a vast array of premises liability matters. Claims against retail stores, including general liability premises claims, negligent security claims and retail theft claims, make up almost one-third of the firm’s casualty cases. For more than 25 years, the practice has continued to grow, confirming the value that this specialized group offers to our retail clients.

Comprised of highly-skilled trial attorneys and litigators, with members of the group located throughout the firm’s 20 offices, our practice group continues to maintain a strong multi-regional presence within the industry. Our premises and retail liability attorneys are well-versed in those legal issues impacting all aspects of the retail industry, from liability both outside and inside of the premises, to the services and products retailers offer their customers. Our comprehensive knowledge of the issues facing our retail clients allows us to identify issues early on, based on the claims asserted and available defenses, in order to:     

  • Determine whether the matter should be aggressively defended or placed into an early settlement strategy;
  • Help prevent against possible spoliation issues;
  • Complete a thorough investigation based on internal policies, industry standards and current litigation trends;
  • Timely identify and evaluate significant risk transfer issues to alleviate the financial burden on our retail clients and/or their carriers; and
  • Effectively work toward carrying out our defense strategy with minimal disruption to our clients’ retail businesses, regardless of size.

In addition to our practice group’s highly-skilled defense of premises and retail liability claims, our attorneys assist with early investigations of possible claims to ensure a strong plan of action is promptly put in place. These minimal and low-cost efforts, when completed up front, ensure the timely collection of critical information that is often lost over time due to common challenges facing the retail industry, such as employee turnover, subsequent revisions to internal policies, and the failure to timely preserve video and photographic evidence.

Our attorneys also play a pivotal role in training clients to be knowledgeable about issues and trends facing the retail industry. By providing on-site seminars to employees and managers, consulting on the drafting of internal policies and procedures, and assisting with the implementation of risk-prevention practices, we can help to reduce the number of claims with which our clients are faced. Having developed long-lasting relationships with many national and local retail clients, they know that the specialized knowledge of our practice group attorneys is just a phone call away.

Through memberships with industry groups, such as the Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) and the National Retail & Restaurant Defense Association (NRRDA), our attorneys are at the forefront of issues and trends facing the retail industry. Their efforts put the Marshall Dennehey Premises and Retail Liability Group in the best position to provide high-level, specialized services to our retail clients.

*Marshall Dennehey’s Premises and Retail Liability Practice Group is co-chaired by shareholders Walter J. Klekotka, of our Mount Laurel, New Jersey office, and Amanda J. Podlucky, of our Orlando, Florida office, who have a total of more than 45 years combined experience defending premises claims They may be reached at wjklekotka@mdwcg.com or ajpodlucky@mdwcg.com.

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 3, June 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.

Thought Leadership

Delaware Superior Court Clarifies Pleading Standard for Legal Malpractice Claims

In the matter of Edelstein v. Kirschner, No. N25C-09-018 FJJ, 2026 Del. Super. LEXIS 45, at *1 (Super. Ct. Jan. 29, 2026), the plaintiff law firm sued its former client for unpaid legal fees in the amount of $4,399.35. The former client asserted a counterclaim alleging legal malpractice. More, specifically, the former client claimed that his lawyer committed malpractice be recommending that he settle an underlying lawsuit by entering into a stipulated judgment for an excessive amount with interest that was accruing at “an outlandish” interest rate. The law firm moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the basis that its former client had not alleged facts reflecting that he could prove the case within the case. That is, facts reflecting that his attorneys caused him to lose the underlying case. The Superior Court held that while a legal malpractice plaintiff in cases arising from underlying litigation must prove the case within the case to survive a summary judgment motion, he does not need to plead facts reflecting as much in order to survive a motion to dismiss. While this case addresses the pleading requirements of a legal malpractice case in Delaware, it also serves as reminder that chasing unpaid legal fees from a former client can often give rise to a legal malpractice counterclaim. Attorneys seeking to collect unpaid legal fees should ensure that the fees they seek are for a significant amount, which would be recoverable if a judgment is obtained. Otherwise, the effort could backfire.