.

Construction Injury Litigation

Construction sites are listed as one of the most dangerous places to work. With millions of accidents reported each year, injuries are often serious even catastrophic. This type of litigation is challenging and tends to involve sophisticated issues with multiple parties and complex relationships.

Marshall Dennehey's Construction Injury Practice Group understands these complex relationships and issues. With more than three decades of experience, our diverse team of attorneys regularly defends our clients in a wide range of personal injury matters arising out of the construction process. We provide an experienced defense unique to the law for owners, general contractors, constructions managers and subcontractors of every trade.

The depth of our experience is key to our legal defense in construction injury matters. Our professionals have considerable experience and understand the law surrounding this delicate area including workers' compensation, the statutory employer doctrine and peculiar risk doctrine. Our defense approach is aimed at the early identification of key issues and is predicated on developing the earliest possible defense strategies tailored to the individual case and client. Through the use of technology and aggressive investigation, we are able to assess liability and damages early on in the case so, together with the client and insurer; we can effectively resolve the case.

Our unique strategy and team approach consists of experienced partners, associates and paralegals capable of handling the basic, as well as the highly sophisticated and complex, construction litigation matters throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Florida, New York and Connecticut.

We look forward to your inquiries and remain at your disposal for presentations or seminars which your company may desire.

Results

View all

Consolidated Cases Successfully Transferred to Correct Venue

We successfully transferred two consolidated cases involving alleged falls by construction workers from Philadelphia to Cumberland County. Our clients were located in Lancaster County, and the only codefendant was located in Philadelphia County. We filed preliminary objections as to venue, arguing that the codefendant was a “phantom” defendant named to obtain venue in Philadelphia County. The court was convinced by our arguments. This ruling cuts against the current trend of giving broad deference to plaintiffs on venue issues.

Obtained Positive Outcome in a Construction Site-Related Personal Injury Case

We secured a positive outcome for our client in a construction site-related personal injury case in New Jersey. After a month of trial, we successfully placed the entirety of the plaintiff’s $4.2 million jury verdict against the remaining co-defendant. We also succeeded in placing all of our client’s costs and attorney’s fees on the co-defendant. In total, the judgment against the co-defendant was in excess of $7 million.

Thought Leadership

View all

Danger: Construction Site - Avoiding Liability and Workers' Compensation Exposure in the Construction Industry

June 20, 2025

Construction sites are listed among the most dangerous places to work. With millions of accidents reported each year, injuries are often serious - and sometimes catastrophic. Such injuries often give rise to liability claims and workers' compensation claims. These claims can be challenging to defend, and tend to involve sophisticated issues with multiple parties and complex relationships. The avoidance of such claims requires proactive risk management strategies.

Defense Digest

Undefined Parties and the Statutory Employer Defense

December 1, 2024

Key Points:  A recent Pennsylvania Superior Court decision highlights the importance of clarity in contracts for employers asserting a statutory employer defense.  Employers will not be able to successfully assert the statutory employer defense when there is ambiguity about contracting parties. Contractors should ensure they are contracted with the owner of the property to protect against liability from a workplace accident. In litigation involving workplace accidents, a common defense raised by a contractor is the statutory employer defense under the Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act. The Act requires an employer to pay workers’ compensation benefits to employees injured in the course of their employment regardless of the employer’s own negligence. In return for assuming secondary liability for the payment of workers’ compensation benefits, a statutory employer is immune from suit brought by an employee for a work-related injury.  A recent Pennsylvania Superior Court case highlights issues that may arise when a subcontractor’s agreement for a construction project is not properly executed. In Feldman v. CP Acquisitions 25, L.P., 2024 WL 4156993 (Pa. Super. Sept. 12, 2024), the Superior Court agreed with the trial court’s decision that a contractor could not avoid liability using the statutory employer defense when it is unclear who the contracting parties are in a subcontracting agreement. In this case the plaintiff, Brian Feldman, suffered grievous injuries from a workplace electrocution accident during a tree removal project during the construction of an apartment building. Cross Properties engaged Altino Concrete Construction as a contractor to build an apartment building on a property they had recently acquired. Near the end of construction on this project, Cross Properties reached out to Vito Braccia, the owner of Altino Concrete Solutions and Braccia Construction, LLC (VBC), to remove trees on an adjacent property owned by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA). Mr. Braccia then subcontracted with Colonial Tree Service, Inc., for the tree removal project. Mr. Braccia did not carry out any safety planning before the tree removal project, even though he was aware of a high-voltage power line on SEPTA’s property. Additionally, he failed to reach out to SEPTA for permission to enter the property or to have the power lines de-energized during the tree removal project. On the day of the project, Mr. Feldman was electrocuted when a current arced from the power line and through a crane hoist. As a result, Mr. Feldman suffered extensive and severe burns, and spent the next six weeks recovering in a hospital burn unit. Mr. Feldman filed and prevailed in a personal injury suit against the general contractor, developer, and related entities.  VBC, the contractor for the tree removal, appealed the trial court’s decision in favor of Mr. Feldman. One argument raised by VBC on appeal was that, as the plaintiff’s statutory employer under section 302(b) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, they were immune from a personal injury suit brought by Mr. Feldman.  The longstanding test to determine whether a person or entity qualifies as a statutory employer under this section was set forth by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 153 A. 424 (Pa. 1930). The McDonald test requires an employer satisfy each of the following elements to be considered a statutory employer under section 302(b): an employer who is under contract with an owner or one in the position of an owner; the premises occupied by or under the control of such employer;  a subcontract made by such employer;  part of the employer’s regular business entrusted [sic] to such subcontractor; and  an employee of such subcontractor. It was undisputed that VBC was the contractor for the tree removal project. However, the respective representatives from Cross Properties and Colonial testified at trial that they believed they had an oral agreement with Altino Concrete Construction for the tree removal project, not VBC. As a result, the court determined there was no mutual understanding between the parties regarding who they were contracting with, which is essential for any contract. Therefore, the court held that VBC could not meet the first element of the McDonald test. The court went further and noted that, even if a valid contract existed between Cross Properties and VBC, it would not help their case. They would still be unable to prove they had a contract with the property owner or someone in a similar position. This is because SEPTA was the actual owner of the property in question, not Cross Properties. As VBC never attempted to reach an agreement with SEPTA for the tree removal, they could not establish they were a statutory employer under Section 302(b).  In conclusion, Feldman v. CP Acquisitions 25, L.P. underscores the importance of clearly defining contractual relationships in construction projects. The court’s ruling emphasizes that a lack of mutual understanding among contracting parties prevents the successful use of the statutory employer defense under the Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act.  Contractors should ensure that subcontracting agreements clearly identify all parties involved and confirm ownership of the work site. By doing so, they can better protect themselves against liability in workplace accidents and minimize potential legal disputes. *Osama is an associate and a member of our Casualty Department. He works in our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, office.    Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey 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. © 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

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.

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

Thought Leadership

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.

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

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

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney