Marshall Dennehey's Consumer Financial Services Litigation Practice Group represents financial institutions, creditors, debt collectors, debt servicers, debt buyers, auto finance companies, student lenders and servicers, telecommunication providers, collection attorneys, mortgage lenders and credit reporting agencies. We are on the front lines representing our clients in claims brought by the increasingly sophisticated consumer plaintiffs’ bars in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Florida and the District of Columbia.
Among the many services our group provides are:
- Defense of individual and class action lawsuits arising from claims under the FCRA, FDCPA, TCPA, ECOA, EFTA and state consumer statutes.
We offer cost-effective, intelligent and pragmatic representation of our clients. While we aggressively defend claims in litigation, we understand that the most critical component of litigation is an open line of communication with our clients. We never lose sight of our client's goals and strive to meet your expectations with focused attention arising from our extensive knowledge of the law. Our primary focus is to empower you to make informed decisions about your exposures and to develop an appropriate defense strategy.
Our attorneys maintain active memberships in industry-leading organizations and keep abreast of the ever-changing regulatory environment impacting our clients. Because federal and state consumer laws are ever-evolving, you can feel confident that Marshall Dennehey's Consumer Financial Services Litigation Practice Group is on the cutting edge of emerging trends in case law, litigation and defense.
Thought Leadership
Defense Digest
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Slams Door Shut on Claims Filed Against Home Inspectors
December 1, 2025
Key Points: PA Supreme Court affirmed that home inspectors in Pennsylvania are protected by a one-year statute of repose under the state’s Home Inspection Law. Any lawsuit against a home inspector must be filed within one year of the inspection, regardless of when the problem is discovered. Decision provides an important tool for defending claims brought against home inspectors more than one year after delivery of the inspection report. This article originally appeared in the October 28, 2025, issue of PLUS Blog. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently affirmed that home inspectors in Pennsylvania are protected by a one-year statute of repose under the state’s Home Inspection Law. This means that any lawsuit against a home inspector must be filed within one year of the inspection—regardless of when the problem is discovered. In Gidor v. Mangus d/b/a Mangus Inspections, 2024 WL 80950 (Pa. Super. Jan. 8, 2024), the Superior Court found that Section 7512 of the Pennsylvania Home Inspection Law (68 Pa.C.S. § 7512) operated as a statute of repose, not a statute of limitations, and thus was not tolled by the discovery rule. Ms. Gidor’s petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court focused on the designation of Section 7512 as a statute of repose, arguing that the statute is ambiguous and places the burden of commencing an action on a plaintiff as opposed to a defendant, raises constitutional issues, and violates legislative intent. In response, Mangus analogized Section 7512 to the Construction Statute of Repose and raised public policy considerations as to the intent of the General Assembly to limit claims against home inspectors. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the argument that the language was ambiguous and that a statute of repose requires a precipitating event by a defendant. The court unequivocally concluded that Section 7512 is a statute of repose “because it plainly, unambiguously, and without equitable exceptions, requires a plaintiff to commence an action within a specified time period after the occurrence of a definitely established event, regardless of when the claim accrues.” Id. at *13. As set forth by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, “unlike a statute of limitations, a statute of repose ‘is not related to the accrual of any cause of action’ because the injury need not have occurred, much less been discovered.” Id. at *8 (citing Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 981 A.2d 198, 211 (Pa. 2009)). To be sure, the date of accrual and preclusion of the discovery rule is a key distinction between a statute of limitations and statute of repose, and has clear implications for the viability of a litigant’s claim. This decision provides an important tool for defending claims brought against home inspectors more than one year after delivery of the inspection report. Best practices for home inspectors include: • Treat the date of report delivery as the critical cutoff for potential litigation. • Deliver reports promptly to start the one-year clock running. • Use time-stamped delivery methods—such as email or certified mail—to establish proof of delivery. • Maintain clear records of both the delivery date and the report itself for an extended period, ensuring documentation is available if a claim is later filed. The litigation process can be lengthy and tedious, particularly in the context of complicated real estate transactions. The Gidor decision will force claimants to expeditiously decide whether to pursue claims, and may limit future litigation to the extent purported defects are latent or undisclosed beyond the one-year statute of repose period. Dana is Chair of our Real Estate E&O Liability Practice Group. She works in our Philadelphia, PA office and can be reached at 215-575-4556 or DAGittleman@mdwcg.com. Danielle is Chair of our Consumer Financial Services Litigation Practice Group. She works in our Pittsburgh, PA office and can be reached at 412-803-1185 or DAGittleman@mdwcg.com. Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 4, December 2025, 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. © 2025 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.
Defense Digest
On the Pulse…In-Step With Our Consumer Financial Services Litigation Practice Group
March 1, 2024
The multitude of federal and state consumer protection laws present challenges for consumer financial services companies seeking to remain compliant with the laws while avoiding claims and lawsuits. The attorneys in Marshall Dennehey’s Consumer Financial Services Litigation Practice Group understand the challenges financial institutions, creditors, debt collectors, and others face in this very specific field of litigation. Our attorneys defends individual and class action lawsuits arising from claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA); Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA); Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA); state consumer statutes, and more. Additional clients represented include debt servicers, debt buyers, auto finance companies, repossession companies, student lenders and servicers, telecommunication providers, collection attorneys, mortgage lenders, and credit reporting agencies. Attorneys across our 19 offices are on the front lines representing clients against claims brought by the increasingly sophisticated consumer plaintiffs’ bars in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia. Primary attorneys handling these matters include Jeremy Zacharias in New Jersey; myself, Aaron Moore, Stephen Keim, and Maureen Fitzgerald in Pennsylvania; Caroline Pacheco, Holly Hamilton, and Joe Hess in Florida; and David Lane in New York. Members of our practice group maintain active memberships in the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA International) and the National Creditors Bar Association (NCBA). We often attend and speak at these conferences to keep abreast of the ever-changing regulatory environment impacting our clients. Marshall Dennehey’s Consumer Financial Services Litigation Practice Group offers cost-effective, intelligent, and pragmatic representation to our clients. While we aggressively defend claims in litigation, we understand that the most critical component of litigation is an open line of communication. We never lose sight of our clients’ goals, and we meet their expectations with focused attention arising from our extensive knowledge of the law. Our principal focus is to empower our clients to make informed decisions and to develop an appropriate defense strategy. We welcome your inquiries about our practice group and how we may help you efficiently resolve your consumer financial services litigation. *Danielle works in our Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1185 or dmvugrinovich@mdwcg.com. Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 1, March 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.
