.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2024 Shareholder Class And Special Counsel Promotions

December 19, 2023

Marshall Dennehey is pleased to announce that 10 attorneys have been elected shareholders of the firm effective January 1, 2024. Additionally, three attorneys have been promoted from associate to special counsel. These new shareholders and special counsel represent the firm's four core departments – Casualty, Professional Liability, Health Care and Workers' Compensation – and come from 8 of the firm's 19 offices.

“This class of newly elected shareholders embodies the traits that make Marshall Dennehey a special place,” said
G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “They are hard working, dedicated, talented lawyers whose exceptional contributions have been pivotal to the success of the firm and our clients. We congratulate them on their well-deserved promotions and look forward to their future achievements as we continue the firm’s growth.” 

Promoted to Shareholder

ORLANDO, FLORIDA
Peggy Smith Bush, Casualty Department (former Special Counsel)
Peggy is an experienced litigator, advocate and counselor who routinely defends corporations, large self-insureds, and public entities in complex litigation involving claims of personal injury and wrongful death. Clients value the strategic thinking and results-oriented litigation skills she brings to matters involving transportation, premises liability, product liability, negligent security, as well as general liability claims. Peggy is a graduate of the University of North Alabama and Barry University School of Law. She is admitted to practice in Florida, the U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit, and before the U.S. Supreme Court.

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Ryan P. Friel, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Ryan defends a variety of clients as a member of both the Securities & Investments Professional Liability and Privacy and Data Security Practice Groups. He represents FINRA member firms, registered representatives, and registered investment advisors in state and federal court as well as in FINRA arbitration and expungement proceedings and a wide range of investigations, examinations, inquiries, and enforcement matters. Ryan also defends clients in privacy-related litigation and technology-related litigation, and conducts regulatory investigations across many industries in matters stemming from data privacy and security incidents. He is a graduate of Fairfield University and Syracuse University College of Law. Ryan is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania.

Benjamin M.H. Goshko, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Ben focuses his practice on construction, trucking/transportation, product liability, and hospitality matters. He defends claims on behalf of construction contractors, product manufacturers, property owners, restaurants, and hotels in litigation involving fire losses, negligence, auto accidents, catastrophic injuries, and wrongful death. Ben is a graduate of Temple University and Temple University Beasley School of Law. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 

Kara A. Pullman, Professional Liability Department (former Special Counsel)
Kara defends employers in claims involving allegations of discrimination based upon age, gender, race, sexual orientation and disability, and also handles retaliation and whistleblower claims in federal and state courts and administrative agencies.  Additionally, she provides counsel to clients regarding employment matters, including ensuring that policies and procedures are legally compliant and up to date. She also defends school districts in cases alleging violations of the IDEA and related federal and state statutes, and has handled numerous special education due process matters. Kara is also experienced in the areas of municipal liability and civil rights and has represented police departments, police officers, and school boards in cases relating to civil rights and discrimination in the state and federal courts. She is a graduate of St. Joseph’s University and Rutgers University School of Law, Camden. She is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
Gregory P. Graham, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Greg defends corporations and professionals in commercial, construction, and class action litigation. He also defends attorneys in legal malpractice actions involving civil and family disputes, business transactions in the real estate and oil and gas industries, and commercial litigation. Greg's construction practice includes the representation of owners, contractors, and design professionals from defect and commercial loss claims related to the construction industry. Admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, he is a graduate of Michigan State University and the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.


KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Stephen G. Keim, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Stephen represents clients in motor vehicle accidents, premises liability, product liability, business litigation, and professional liability matters. He also has significant experience defending attorneys, real estate brokers and agents, accountants, and architects against professional liability claims. A graduate of Kutztown University of Pennsylvania and the William S. Boyd School of Law, he is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 

Christin L. Kochel, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Christin focuses her practice on insurance coverage matters and civil litigation, with emphasis on automobile liability and uninsured/underinsured motorist claims. She is also experienced in defending premises liability, homeowner's insurance, minor's compromise, and other general liability claims and suits. She is a graduate of Bloomsburg University and Widener University School of Law and is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

ROSELAND, NJ
Heather M. LaBombardi, Health Care Department (former Associate)
Heather concentrates her practice on medical malpractice and health care liability matters. She routinely defends physicians, nurses, health care providers, and medical facilities against medical malpractice claims. She additionally has written several appellate briefs and argued multiple times before the New Jersey Appellate Division. She is a graduate of the University of Miami and earned an M.S. in management from Nova Southeastern University before obtaining her J.D. from Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School. She is admitted to practice in New Jersey and New York. 

Paul W. Lanza, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Paul concentrates his practice primarily on trucking/transportation liability, premises/retail liability, and construction injury litigation. He also handles cases involving condominium/community association law, automobile liability, product liability, and malpractice claims against real estate professionals. He is frequently retained by clients to handle the pre-suit investigation of high-exposure cases involving complex issues of fact and law, including fatal commercial vehicle accidents. Paul is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Seton Hall University School of Law. He is admitted to practice in New Jersey and New York.

NEW YORK CITY
Andrew Thebaud, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Andrew represents clients in the fields of construction injury litigation, retail liability, product liability, automobile litigation, commercial trucking litigation and property litigation. His clients include construction companies, maintenance companies, retail stores, and product retailers, among other clients. He also handles a significant amount of retail and premises liability cases. He is a graduate of the University at Albany (SUNY) and the University of Virginia School of Law, and is admitted to practice in New York.

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Associates Promoted to Special Counsel

MOUNT LAUREL
Mari I. Gangadean, Professional Liability Department
Mari defends employers in employment-related claims involving allegations of discrimination based upon age, gender, race, sexual orientation, and disability, as well as retaliation and "whistleblowing" in both federal and state courts. She additionally has extensive experience in insurance coverage and bad faith litigation, as well as defending automobile negligence and uninsured/underinsured motorist claims. A graduate of Mount Holyoke College, she earned her law degree from Temple University School of Law. She is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

PHILADELPHIA
Angeline C. Panepresso, Casualty Department
Angeline devotes her practice to a variety of litigation matters including premises liability, product liability, automobile liability, and construction liability. She is a graduate of Lehigh University and Widener University School of Law and is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 

WESTCHESTER
Sanford G. Jacobs, Casualty Department
Sanford has over 30 years of experience in trucking & transportation liability, general liability, premises liability, motor vehicle liability, construction injury litigation, products liability, and toxic torts. His extensive experience includes handling cases from inception through jury trial throughout the New York Metropolitan area, upstate New York, and the state of Florida. He is a graduate of the State University of New York at Oneonta and Western Michigan University Cooley Law School. He is admitted to practice in New York, the District of Columbia, and Florida. 
 

Firm Highlights

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. 

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

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Exclusion of Legal Malpractice Expert as Impermissible Net Opinion

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias obtained a favorable decision on behalf of their client in a case centering on the admissibility of expert testimony in legal malpractice actions. In Martin v. Loury, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the exclusion of a plaintiff's legal malpractice expert, holding that the expert's opinions on causation and damages were too speculative to support the malpractice claim. The legal malpractice action arose from an underlying employment dispute involving claims for damages stemming from the breach of an employment agreement. The plaintiff alleged that defense counsel committed malpractice during a second trial by failing to recall the plaintiff as a rebuttal witness after the employer's CEO testified. According to the plaintiff's expert, additional rebuttal testimony would have bolstered the plaintiff's damages claims and led to a more favorable result. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division rejected that theory. The courts found that the expert could not explain how the proposed rebuttal testimony would have altered the outcome of the underlying case or resulted in any additional recoverable damages. Notably, the trial judge in the underlying employment matter had already rejected the CEO's testimony as not credible and had accepted the damages analysis advanced by the plaintiff. The court had also determined that the amount of damages was not genuinely disputed. As a result, the expert's opinion that additional rebuttal testimony would have produced a better outcome was unsupported by the record and based on speculation rather than evidence. The Appellate Division agreed that neither the plaintiff nor the expert could identify any actual damages attributable to the alleged malpractice or demonstrate the required element of proximate causation. The court further upheld the trial court's application of New Jersey's net opinion doctrine, finding that the expert failed to provide the necessary "why and wherefore" supporting his conclusion that the attorney's conduct caused a compensable loss. Because the opinions rested on unquantified possibilities rather than demonstrable facts, they were inadmissible. Key Takeaway for Legal Malpractice Defendants For attorneys and firms defending legal malpractice claims, Martin v. Loury underscores the importance of closely scrutinizing an opponent's expert report on the critical elements of proximate causation and damages. The decision demonstrates that a malpractice claim cannot survive where an expert merely speculates that different litigation tactics might have produced a better result. Instead, the plaintiff must present admissible expert testimony grounded in the record that explains how the alleged attorney error probably changed the outcome of the underlying matter and resulted in measurable damages.

Thought Leadership

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Holds That Public Policy Does Not Prevent Insurance Coverage for Sex Trafficking Claims

On July 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an opinion emphasizing the limited circumstances in which courts may invoke public policy to bar insurance coverage, holding in Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (U.S. Branch) v. RI Settlement Trust that Pennsylvania public policy does not preclude coverage for claims alleging that insureds enabled or profited from human sex trafficking. The decision rejects a line of federal district court decisions predicting otherwise and reinforces that Pennsylvania courts will invoke the public policy doctrine only in the clearest of circumstances. RI Settlement is particularly significant because it arose on certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, giving the Supreme Court the opportunity to resolve an issue on which federal courts had predicted Pennsylvania law differently. RI Settlement arose out of four separate civil complaints in which the underlying plaintiffs alleged that, as minors, they were the victims of human sex trafficking at various hotels in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs claimed that the hotel owners were negligent in failing to stop the sex trafficking from happening at their hotels. After the filing of the lawsuits, the hotel owners sought coverage under their Commercial General Liability policies. The insurers initially defended the hotels under Reservation of Rights letters, though the carriers later filed Declaratory Judgment actions seeking declarations that they did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify. In short, the insurers argued in the alternative that they did not owe any obligation to provide coverage based upon Pennsylvania public policy (because the claims violated the Human Trafficking Law – 18 Pa.C.S. § 3011) and the terms and conditions of the policy. On motions for judgment on the pleadings, the District Court found for the insurers on the basis of public policy: There is no duty to defend or indemnify against actions arising out of an insured's criminal conduct related to the sex trafficking of minors. The Court appreciates that it may make public policy the basis of a judicial decision only in “the clearest of cases.” See Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 589 A.2d 854, 868 (Pa. 2004) (quoting Hall v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 648 A.2d 755, 760 (Pa. 1994)). Yet, the Court strains to imagine a clearer case than the one presented here in which the facts alleged indicate that Policyholders engaged in criminal conduct in violation of Pennsylvania's Human Trafficking Law. The hotel owners appealed the matter to the Third Circuit, which petitioned the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to grant review of two certified questions of law: (1) whether Pennsylvania law had an “overriding public policy” against sex trafficking, such that an insurer’s duty to defend and/or indemnify is abrogated when an insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from such trafficking; and (2) if yes, is that duty abrogated whenever the insured’s alleged conduct would constitute a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Trafficking statute. Importantly, the certified questions did not ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the policies afforded coverage under their terms. Rather, the court was asked only whether Pennsylvania public policy independently barred coverage. As a result, the court assumed for purposes of answering the certified questions that the insurers otherwise owed a duty to defend and addressed only the public policy issue, leaving all policy-based coverage defenses for further proceedings. Because the court concluded that the answer to the first certified question was “no”, it did not reach the second issue. In reaching its determination that Pennsylvania public policy does not prohibit insurance coverage for sex trafficking claims, the court limited the impact of its decision in Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 855 A. 2d 854, 855 (Pa. 2004), which the RI Settlement opinion emphasized as having been an “Opinion Announcing Judgment of the Court” – or a plurality opinion. In Greenfield, the insured homeowner was sued by the estate of his houseguest who overdosed from heroin that he sold to her. The matter wound its way to the Supreme Court, which determined that the insurer did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify based upon Pennsylvania public policy, which criminalized the sale and use of heroin as a Schedule I narcotic. In RI Settlement, the court “decline[d] the invitation” to extend the rationale of the three-justice plurality in Greenfield beyond cases involving Schedule I controlled substances. In so holding, the justices in RI Settlement refused to “divine an overriding public policy pronouncement by the General Assembly by virtue of its enactment of the Human Trafficking Law.” The opinion further states that it is not “within the purview of this Court to rank the magnitude of the public policy underlying the various crimes defined in the Crimes Code. It is sufficient for the work of the courts to know that the General Assembly has identified conduct it deems harmful and dangerous to the maintenance of an orderly society and criminalized it.” While the court declined to declare that Pennsylvania public policy prohibits coverage for sex trafficking claims, the opinion in RI Settlement expressly states that insurers are free to include appropriate exclusionary language for such causes of actions in their policies if they desire to do so. It will certainly be interesting to see whether the insurance industry accepts the court’s invitation, or perhaps whether the Pennsylvania legislature steps in to clarify that sex trafficking claims are indeed of the type or magnitude that they should not be covered by insurance. In any event, we will, of course, continue to monitor this and other insurance coverage issues that arise before courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and throughout our firm’s geographic footprint and around the country.

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.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

Court Allows Recklessness and Punitive Damages Claims to Proceed After Work‑Zone Crash

In a case where a defendant filed preliminary objections against allegations of recklessness and punitive damages, the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas denied these preliminary objections. This case stems from a motor vehicle accident, where the defendants car struck the plaintiffs car after the defendant allegedly fell asleep at the wheel, going at a high rate of speed, through a construction work zone. Defendant first objected to the general allegations throughout the plaintiff’s complaint pertaining to “reckless” conduct contending that there were insufficient factual allegations to support the claim of reckless conduct. Defendant next objected to the plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, as punitive damages may only be assessed against a motorist for falling asleep while driving if there is further evidence to prove driver was aware of their drowsiness and risk of falling asleep. Lastly, defendant objected to plaintiffs complaint, claiming it lacked specificity. The court here found that the plaintiff had included in the complaint specific allegations related to the defendant’s alleged recklessness, including allegations regarding speeding in a work zone, almost striking the flagger, falling asleep at the wheel, and striking the plaintiffs vehicle which was stopped. Additionally, the court noted that falling asleep does not come without warning. The court found that these allegations were sufficient to support an allegation of recklessness at the pleadings stage.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney