.

Christopher M. Reeser

Office Managing Attorney

CMReeser@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Christopher M. Reeser

With 29 years of litigation experience in a diverse range of practice areas, Chris represents and defends clients in matters involving motor vehicle, premises liability, construction defect and pharmacy liability. His deep understanding of these areas and breadth of experience is a valuable asset to his clients. Chris also serves as the Casualty Supervisor and Managing Attorney of the Harrisburg office. In this capacity, he oversees the day-to-day operations for the entire office and team of attorneys ensuring that client matters are handled promptly, professionally and effectively.

Chris has represented several large and small automobile insurance carriers and their insureds, numerous hotels, conference centers, and hotel chains as well as grocery store chains, convenience stores, retail stores, pharmacies, and industrial facilities. Chris has defended a number of significant and catastrophic cases involving injuries on building and roadway construction sites. He has also handled a number of underinsured motorist arbitrations and has extensive experience with mediation and arbitration. 

Chris also defends fraternal organizations, schools and universities in matters involving contractual disputes, indemnity, dram shop and general negligence. He has counseled and represented clients in matters related to insurance coverage and professional liability. Additionally, he handles cases involving elevators, escalators, moving walkways, electronic doorways, cranes and lifts representing clients in alleged elevator, escalator malfunctions and negligent maintenance.

During his career, Chris has had significant experience handling several hundred motor vehicle matters involving third-party liability, uninsured and underinsured motorist claims along with several hundred premises liability cases. He has litigated jury trials to verdict in 15 different counties in state from South Central Pennsylvania to the Northern tier as well as in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Chris has also been appointed by the President Judge of Dauphin County on multiple occasions to serve as an arbitrator, including a two-year term in which he was asked to serve as the Chairman of an arbitration panel. 

Chris is a graduate of Albright College in Reading and the Widener University School of Law in Harrisburg. Chris started practice in Williamsport, working with a small litigation firm. He joined the Williamsport office of Marshall Dennehey in 1997 as an associate and he was elected a shareholder in 2002. In 2004, Chris returned to his hometown of Harrisburg to work in our Harrisburg office.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 1994)
    • Albright College (B.A., 1991)
    • Pennsylvania, 1994
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 1995
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2007
    • Maryland, 2016
    • U.S. District Court District of Maryland, 2020
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, “Lawyer of the Year,” Harrisburg, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (2025)
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2022-2025)
    • Central Penn Business Journal "Power List For Law" (2025)
    • Dauphin County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute
    • Fundamentals of Personal Injury, June 2014
    • Pennsylvania's Fair Share Act - PAMIC Claims Summit, March, 2012
    • Basics of Auto Law – Defense Perspective, September 2012
    • Handling the Auto Injury Claim: Settle the Case Without Going to Court, National Business Institute, August 2008 
    • Releases and Settlements - Tactics, Tips and Techniques, 2007 PAMIC Summit 
    • Tort Claims Act, Pennsylvania Association of Township Supervisors 
    • Two Scoops: Superior Court Allows UM/UIM Claimants to Double Dip Workers' Compensation Benefits, Defense Digest, Vol. 11, No. 3, September, 2005
    • Superior Court Holds New Trial is Warranted Whenever Jury Seeks Own Expert Opinion, Defense Digest, Vol. 9, No. 3, September, 2003
    • A defense verdict in a toxic tort case in which the plaintiff claimed neuro-cognitive deficits as a result of exposure to pesticide which was applied in her home.  The plaintiff had called preiminent experts from around the country in the fields of industrial hygiene, occupational medicine, neurotoxicology and pesticide application in support of her claim.  The jury found that our client, a large pest control company, was not negligent. 
    • Successful defense of a subrogation claim brought against the manufacturer of a lighting fixture in which it was claimed that the design of the light caused the fire to occur.  We were able to establish that the fire was not caused by the design of the light but instead by the misuse of the product by the homeowner, who did not follow the warnings contained on the light regarding its use in conjunction with a salt water aquarium. 
    • Successfully obtaining the dismissal of a fraud claim against a client during trial in the Middle District of Pennsylvania which greatly reduced the insured's exposure in a fire loss case at a commercial facility.  The dismissal of the fraud claim insulated our client, a small company, from uninsured exposure. 
    • Successfully defending a large tree cutting company in a case in which it was alleged that an employee of the company was negligent in assisting a mechanic who was performing repairs to the hydraulic system on a boom truck resulting in a crush injury to the mechanic in which he lost a portion of bone in his forearm following contraction of MRSA.
    • Successfully defending a nail salon in a fall down case in which the plaintiff claimed that she was improperly escorted to a chair following a pedicure and had to undergo a multi-level cervical fusion as a result of her fall. 
    • Successfully defended a claim against a pharmacy in which the plaintiff, a physician, was dispensed an antipsychotic medication instead of his usual beta blocker. As a result, the plaintiff claimed post traumatic stress disorder and a permanent loss of income as a result of suffering stroke-like conditions requiring him to be life flighted to a hospital. The jury concluded that the plaintiff did not sustain post traumatic stress disorder and suffered no permanent physical injury and awarded only a nominal amount of money. 
    • Successfully defended a fraternal organization which was sued as a result of an alleged assault by a security guard against an animal rights protestor outside of a circus. The jury concluded that the assault did not occur and the case resulted in a defense verdict. 
    • Gandhi v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 2020 WL 7769776
    • Marks v. The Reserve at Hershey Meadows, LEXIS 47325 (U.S. Dist. 2007)
    • Calhoun v. Prudential General Ins. Co., LEXIS 44302 (U.S. Dist. 2005)
    • Allstate v. Leiter, 306 F.Supp. 2d 488 (M.D. Pa. 2004)

Results

View all

Summary Judgment Won in a Premises Liability Action

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of two homeowners in a premises liability action. One of the homeowners called his father, the plaintiff, asking him to come to his house because he was having his roof replaced and had concerns about the work being done. The plaintiff arrived at the home and observed nails and other debris strewn about the entire property. Nonetheless, he entered the property to assess the roofing work and took care to avoid stepping on any nails. As he was leaving the property, he stepped on a nail, which went through his foot. The plaintiff asserted claims of negligence against both homeowners and also attempted to assert that, because his son requested that he come to inspect the roofing work, he was a business invitee rather than a licensee. We argued that the plaintiff was a licensee as he was a social guest who was merely providing advice to his son. They further argued that the homeowners owed no duty to the plaintiff as he knew the nails were strewn about the property and he understood the risk involved in walking there. We also argued that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by assumption of risk because as he was aware of the nails on the property and, nonetheless, voluntarily proceeded to walk onto the property. The court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners.

Summary Judgment Obtained in a Premises and Product Liability Case

We won a motion for summary judgment in Schuylkill County, PA, in a premises liability and product liability case. We represented the manufacturer of a concrete railroad crossing that was installed at an intersection in 2005. In 2021, the plaintiff was riding his bike across the crossing when his bike tire allegedly became stuck in a gap in the concrete. There was ample evidence that the railroad was responsible for inspecting and maintaining the crossing while our client did nothing other than supply the prefabricated crossing. We argued the gap that developed in the crossing was not the responsibility of the crossing manufacturer and that the statute of repose barred the lawsuit. The court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

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. 

Thought Leadership

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.

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

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Event

Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC)

Sean and Alex will present, "Life Care Plans: From Low Impact to Policy Limits," focusing on the history and expanding use of life care plans in litigation and their ability to transform low impact injury claims to disproportionate high value claims. By focusing on the limitations of life care planners, Florida's tort-reform on medical damages, and the Daubert standard, extraordinary life care plans with inflated future medical care recommendations can be defended.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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.