.

Craig S. Hudson

Director Emeritus, Professional Liability Department

Portrait of Craig S. Hudson

Craig is the Director Emeritus of the Professional Liability Department. He is also a former member of the firm's three-person Executive Committee, the governing body of our law firm that serves to advance and implement our strategic goals. In his current role, Craig continues to assist with the strategic direction of the department and oversight of over 140 attorneys who focus on defending clients in professional liability claims and suits throughout the firm's 22 distinct areas of professional liability practice.

Craig joined Marshall Dennehey's Philadelphia office in 1993 and has been involved in the firm's management, both in Philadelphia and in Florida, since 1995. Over the years, he has served as the manager of the law clerk program, vice chair and chair of hiring, and as manager of the Philadelphia Professional Liability Group. In 2006, Craig relocated to Florida to manage the firm's Fort Lauderdale office, and more recently, he served as the Regional Managing Attorney for the entire state with responsibility for all four Florida offices and oversight of all their practice groups. In January of 2020, Craig assumed the role of Assistant Director of the Professional Liability Department and was elevated to Department Director in 2021. He works in Philadelphia while maintaining an office in Fort Lauderdale.

A trial attorney for over 30 years, Craig has litigated hundreds of cases in the state and federal courts of Florida, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, obtaining a majority of favorable jury verdicts in all three states. Over the course of his career, he has defended lawyers, accountants, architects, engineers, real estate professionals, property managers, debt collectors, insurance brokers and investment professionals in matters pertaining to malpractice, negligence and fraud. He has also represented law firms, lawyers and employers in all types of employment related litigation at the administrative level and in federal and state court. 

Craig is rated AV Preeminent® by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest rating for an attorney’s professional competence. He has also been selected numerous times to the South Florida Legal Guide – Top Lawyers in Professional Liability Defense. He is a graduate of Villanova University and Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey School of Law – Camden. 

    • Rutgers Law School (J.D., 1985)
    • Villanova University (B.A., 1982)
    • Pennsylvania, 1985
    • Florida, 2006
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • South Florida Legal Guide - Top Lawyers in Professional Liability Defense (2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021)
    • Broward County Bar Association
    • Defense Research Institute
    • Florida State Bar Association
    • Palm Beach County Bar Association
    • Understanding the Sub-Prime Credit and Housing Crises, MG, 2008
    • Sub-Prime Market Collapse and Its Impact on Claims against Professionals involved in Real Estate Transactions, Gen Star, 2008
    • Defending Construction Defect Litigation Claims in Florida, Liberty International, 2007
    • Claims Against the Board of Directors of Condominium and Homeowner Associations, USLI, 2006
    • "Career Spotlight: Leading the Success of Others," South Florida Sun Sentinel, August 12, 2018
    • "Communication With Clients Key to Avoiding Professional Liability Claims,"  InsuranceJournal.com, April 17, 2017
    • "How Insurance Agents Can Mitigate Malpractice Risk: Do the Right Thing,"Property Casualty 360, January 27, 2016
    • "To Reduce Malpractice Risk, Improve Client Communications," Daily Business Review, January 7, 2015
    • "Did the Florida Supreme Court Greatly Expand Tort Law at a Cost to Florida's Contract Law?" Defense Digest, Vol. 19, No. 3, September 2013
    • "Fear the Next Hurricane More Than Florida Supreme Court's Ruling on Tiara," Claims Journal, June 2013
    • "Jury Verdict Value of Emotional Damages Caused by Age Discrimination," Defense Digest, Vol. 17, No. 2, June 2011
    • "Third Circuit Confirms That All Claims Concerning Medical Devices, Other Than Breach of Express Warranty Claims, Are Barred," Defense Digest, January, 1996
    • Defended Florida real estate attorney in a legal malpractice lawsuit arising out of the actions taken by the attorney which led to a default judgment being entered against his client, resulting in his client losing the right to enforce an option to purchase valuable real estate at below market price. After filing a motion for summary judgment asserting that plaintiff could not establish that the option to purchase was enforceable, the case settled for nuisance value.
    • Defended Florida matrimonial attorney in a lawsuit filed by a dissatisfied client after a very acrimonious divorce proceeding to determine property settlement, child custody, and permanent alimony, which included three trials, two appeals, and dozens of motions. Plaintiff identified multiple "errors" by the attorney and claimed over $1 million in damages. Eventually was able to undermine each of the claims made by the plaintiff, and eventually the case was able to be settled well below the plaintiffs bottom line figure.
    • Defended Florida structural engineer in a multi-party binding arbitration arising out of a large condominium project. The case eventually settled without any contribution from the structural engineer.
    • Defended Florida mechanical engineer in a multi-party pre-suit mediation arising out of a large multi-use complex wherein the case settled with the mechanical engineer making the lowest contribution to the settlement fund.
    • Defended auto manufacturer in a number of cases claiming defective airbag system in which several of them went to trial and all ended with defense verdicts.
    • Successfully defended at trial a national amusement park operator in several lawsuits claiming personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the amusement park operator by obtaining defense verdict in each of the cases.
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of title agent alleged to have been involved in a fraudulent mortgage scheme.
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of large masonry contractor in claim arising out of the collapse of a large wall during the course of construction.
    • Defended actuary and benefits expert in a binding AAA arbitration in claims of professional negligence arising out of the termination of a defined benefits. Following twelve days of hearing, the case settled with a payment by the actuary and benefits expert far below the amount claimed at the beginning of the arbitration.

Results

Defense Verdict in Florida Legal Malpractice Case

Obtained a defense verdict in a legal malpractice case in Florida. Our clients, two board-certified construction lawyers, had unsuccessfully defended the plaintiff, a real estate developer for a project in West Palm Beach, Florida, in a lawsuit brought by the general contractor that ended with an adverse jury verdict of over $1 million. In the underlying lawsuit, the two lawyers pursued a litigation strategy that, upon reflection, had little chance of success. The lawyers never communicated to their client the prospect of an adverse result, at least not in writing. During the underlying trial, the judge made critical comments concerning the attorneys' preparation and made several adverse rulings, including dismissing a third-party complaint against one party, stating that the lawyer had sued the wrong party, and another ruling excluding their primary expert because the expert's opinions were not properly disclosed during discovery. Our defense focused on the theme that the legal advice and strategy the attorneys provided to their client was based on inaccurate information supplied by the client; that the client deliberately withheld critical information; that their developer was the one in control of the underlying litigation strategy; and that his own actions and trial testimony undermined his case, not the actions of his attorneys. The trial lasted 14 days; the plaintiff's case took ten and one-half days to present three live witnesses; and there were over 500 exhibits admitted into evidence. The defense case was presented in two and one-half days with testimony from four live witnesses, including the plaintiff's attorney from the underlying trial. The jury deliberated for less than one and one-half hours before returning a defense verdict on all counts.

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

Message From the Executive Committee

June 1, 2023

Beginning in April 2021 and extending through the end of this April, Marshall Dennehey added 14 lateral shareholders. While public pronouncements were issued at the time each joined our firm, I want to introduce them again as a group, to show how the addition of these shareholders reaffirms our continuing commitment to be the go-to civil defense firm in every jurisdiction where we practice.  This influx of new, experienced attorneys took place in nine out of our 19 offices, in six states, and in all four of our practice departments. These shareholders augment our already deep roster of talented and experienced litigation specialists. They have an average of over 28 years of legal experience, representing clients in federal and state court. Together, they have handled over 375 jury trials and countless non-jury trials, arbitrations, mediations, and administrative hearings. Collectively, they have handled every imaginable type of civil litigation, and each of their practices and experiences add depth to our existing practices. Many of them are active in national, state, and local bar associations and industry groups, are frequent lecturers to attorneys and claims professionals, and are contributors to several legal publications.  Seven of the shareholders who joined Marshall Dennehey over this period are in our Casualty Department. The most high-profile of these occurred this past October, when Jack Delany, a prominent, international, catastrophic damage trial attorney, decided to join our firm. Joining Jack as shareholders from his previous firm are Kristen Worley and Andrew Campbell. Jack and his team have been counsel in some of the most significant national and international civil litigation in recent memory, including lawsuits stemming from the Grenfell Tower fire in London, the Surfside condominium collapse in Florida, a recent factory explosion in Pennsylvania, and many other high-profile catastrophic events. Within weeks of joining Marshall Dennehey, Jack, Kristen, and Andrew began a large construction defect case in which the plaintiffs sought over $24 million in damages. After a three-week trial in federal court, the jury returned with a unanimous defense verdict.  In February 2021, Melissa Devich Cochran was the first of the 14 shareholders to join Marshall Dennehey. Melissa was already familiar with Marshall Dennehey, having previously been a 12-year Marshall Dennehey attorney, who decided to return after several years at another firm. She rejoined our Pittsburgh office in our Asbestos and Mass Tort Litigation Practice Group. Melissa quickly settled back into familiar surroundings, bringing with her deep client relations and extensive knowledge and experience in defending national equipment manufacturers, outside contractors, and suppliers in asbestos litigation throughout Western Pennsylvania.  Later in 2021, Vince Cononico joined our Cleveland office from a major insurance company’s staff counsel office where, for over 25 years, he handled a variety of significant automobile, premises liability, uninsured/underinsured motorist, and other personal injury matters throughout Ohio. Vince has first-chaired over 50 jury trials and several times was acknowledged by the insurance company as having the highest winning percentage of the staff counsel in his region.  In 2022, John Yaninek, a 33-year trial attorney, joined our Harrisburg office. John, who is admitted in both Pennsylvania and Maryland, handles a variety of complex casualty matters in both states. John’s experience extends beyond his injury cases, as he has also defended clients in white-collar criminal cases and clients in real estate E&O matters. John is a decorated U.S. Army veteran of the Gulf War, where he managed legal issues for the Army in occupied Iraqi territory during the ground conflict. John retired from the Army Reserve as a Lieutenant Colonel. Just a few months ago, Keith McCabe joined our New Haven office, which we opened in February of 2022. Keith brings to this rapidly-growing office over 30 years of litigation experience, defending personal and commercial clients in the Connecticut federal and state courts. Keith has tried over 75 jury cases to verdict in a broad range of cases, including those that involve catastrophic injuries and deaths.  Four of the 14 lateral shareholders joined our Health Care Department. The first is Bill Gianaris, who joined our Westchester office where he represents hospitals and medical providers in the five boroughs of New York City and upstate New York. A 34-year attorney, Bill spent the first 14 years of his career as an Assistant District Attorney in Queens County where he tried numerous criminal cases. Since leaving the District Attorney’s office, Bill has been primarily defending medical liability and general liability matters. He has tried numerous high-exposure cases involving medical professional liability across New York. Near the end of 2022, Suzanne Utke joined our Health Care Department in Philadelphia. Suzanne, who was a critical care nurse before going to law school, has over 20 years of experience defending physicians, nurses, and health care providers against medical and psychiatric malpractice claims. She also represents professionals in peer and credential reviews before various State Boards.  This year, two additional shareholders joined our Health Care Department. In March, David G. Tomeo, a litigation leader with more than 30 years of experience across New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York, joined our Roseland office. In addition to his medical professional liability practice, Dave handles commercial and business litigation and insurance coverage matters. Dave is also frequently called upon to defend urgent care center franchisors in medical malpractice suits and handles other matters at the intersection of franchise and medical malpractice law.  A few weeks later, experienced medical malpractice litigator Tracey S. McGurk joined Marshall Dennehey as a shareholder in the firm’s Cleveland office. A member of the Health Care Department, she focuses on the defense of medical professionals and providers, including physicians, hospitals, and nursing home/extended care facilities. In addition to her medical liability experience, Tracey also represents non-medical professionals, primarily real estate agents and agencies, in a variety of E&O and commercial matters.  Two of the 14 shareholders who joined Marshall Dennehey over the last 24 months are in our Workers’ Compensation Department. The first is Michael Sebastian, who joined our Scranton office and has represented employers in workers’ compensation matters for over 30 years. Mike came to us with a loyal client following and vast experience at all levels of the workers’ compensation system.  Next, Kristopher Starr joined our Wilmington office. Kris started his legal career as a Deputy Attorney General, prosecuting criminal cases. The Delaware Secretary of Labor appointed Kris as a Workers’ Compensation Hearing Officer, where he spent three years issuing opinions and orders, before leaving the bench to represent public and private employers, which he continues to do.  Finally, Josh J.T. Byrne joined our Professional Liability Department in 2021 as a shareholder in the Philadelphia office. A well-known attorney in the Pennsylvania legal community, Josh has over 24 years of experience representing and defending clients in a variety of professional liability matters, as well as assisting those clients with professional disciplinary and licensing matters. Josh is a frequent commentator on legal malpractice, disciplinary matters, and attorney ethics. He also serves as chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Professional Liability Committee, co-chair of the Pennsylvania Bar’s Amicus Curiae Brief Committee, and co-chair of the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Professional Responsibility Committee. The successful integration of these 14 attorneys is the result of a disciplined process we employ at Marshall Dennehey. More than ten years ago, we created the role of Lateral Integration Coordinator to assist new shareholders in their transition to the firm. Since that time, Sandy Caiazzo, who is also Director of Administrative Services, has held this position. Sandy is the key internal point of contact for all lateral attorneys joining our firm. She works closely with these laterals before, during, and after their arrival to ensure a timely start and seamless transition. Many of these lateral shareholders brought with them other associates or special counsel, paralegals, and administrative staff, and Sandy oversees their onboarding as well.  Among her responsibilities, Sandy liaises with the firm’s administrative departments to ensure that conflict searches are performed, client guidelines and rates are obtained, and press releases and marketing materials are prepared. From day one, she ensures that lateral shareholders who join Marshall Dennehey have the technological and administrative resources and training tools necessary to enable them to hit the ground running. Each of the 15 new shareholders was uniformly impressed with our lateral integration process and marveled at how quickly they were assimilated into Marshall Dennehey. I am very pleased to highlight the addition of our remarkable new lateral shareholders, who further enhance our firm’s extraordinary litigation talent across our many jurisdictions, offices, and practice areas. To a person, these new attorneys saw Marshall Dennehey as the perfect firm in which to further develop their careers and build meaningful professional and personal relationships. I am humbled by their confidence in us, and I firmly believe that they made the right decision in joining us. With their transitions eased by the efficiency of Sandy Caiazzo’s team and our firm’s many other administrative and technological resources, our new lateral shareholders position Marshall Dennehey very well for continued success in the service of our clients. I am also confident that, over the coming months, Marshall Dennehey will have the opportunity to welcome other lateral shareholders who will continue our tradition of finding the right attorneys to serve our clients.  Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2023, 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. © 2023 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

Message From the Executive Committee

April 1, 2022

Over this past year, much has been written and said about what employees of today want from their employer, regardless of the industry. While every so-called expert and pundit has their own perspective, a few consistent themes emerge. Employees want their employer to be invested in their professional and personal development. Employees want constant feedback, affirmation and direction. Employees want to be treated with respect and dignity. Employees want their workplace to have a sense of community and to believe they are a part of a team. To Marshall Dennehey, the aspirations of today’s employees are nothing new. What today’s employees are purportedly looking for in their workplace environment has always been found at Marshall Dennehey. A staple of our culture has been to treat each and every employee, regardless of their position, with respect and dignity. We have long believed in creating a positive workplace environment that fosters a sense of community and teamwork. We have a tradition of making and keeping our commitment to every employee’s professional development. Our culture is why so many of our professional and non-professional staff spend their entire working life at Marshall Dennehey. It is why we have a number of shareholders who have spent their entire careers at Marshall Dennehey. It is why, when lateral attorneys join us, they lament that they failed to make the jump sooner. It is why many of our administrative directors and managers, who started at an entry level position, now find themselves responsible for numerous employees and key operational functions.  Our desire is to attract employees who we believe will thrive at Marshall Dennehey. Our process is to involve a number of employees in recruitment and interviewing to bring different perspectives and life experiences to the table. This ensures that we embrace each potential employee’s differences. The paramount reason for doing so is to identify potential employees who will be successful regardless of their background. We look for individuals who have the potential to be long-term employees and who are themselves sincerely looking for such an opportunity.  Our commitment to the long-term success of our employees is evident immediately after a person is hired and begins working at Marshall Dennehey. Long before “on-boarding” became a catch phrase, we expended a great deal of time, energy and expense in the training of new employees. Every new employee goes through our on-board program. The initial training includes sessions by our administrative departments on our structure, systems and best practices. The training also includes presentations on our history and culture. Additionally, the on-boarding process provides every new employee the opportunity to establish a rapport with other employees at Marshall Dennehey to facilitate teamwork.  For attorneys, the on-boarding process does not end with their initial training session. Twice a year, we hold a “New Attorney” orientation, where we bring every newly-hired attorney, regardless of their experience, back to Philadelphia for a two-day meeting and dinner. At this two-day session, hosted by Larry Schempp, our Director of Professional Development and Training, recently hired attorneys meet the members of the Executive Committee, the practice group directors, our CFO, COO and other administrative directors. There are workshops and training sessions that are incorporated to enhance their professional development, as well as sessions dedicated to explaining Marshall Dennehey’s structure, history, and culture.  For our associates in Philadelphia, Larry Schempp hosts frequent in-house “Lunch and Learn” CLEs that not only provide training and professional development, but they also create an opportunity for the associates, regardless of their practice group, to get to know one another and to establish relationships that serve them well during their careers. For the associates in our offices outside of Philadelphia, we hold similar training sessions. In addition, we hold annual two-day conferences that bring associates from several of our offices together. The program, designed by Larry, includes presentations from shareholders, administrative directors, and at least one member of the Executive Committee, all geared to enhance their professional development and success at Marshall Dennehey.  Every associate is assigned to one of our four Practice Departments, and they are then assigned to work in smaller practice groups within their department. Every new associate is assigned a supervising attorney. Assigning a new associate to work with a limited number of attorneys allows each associate the opportunity to specialize in a particular area and to receive one-on-one training from a more seasoned lawyer. Supervising attorneys are charged with finding opportunities for the associates to interact with claims professionals, clients, opposing counsel, judges, and, when appropriate, to handle depositions and arguments on motions. We want our associates out front, and working with senior attorneys—not confined to working behind the scenes. We believe this is how you effectively train associates. In granting these opportunities, the associate becomes part of the team, and their hard work and accomplishments are recognized. Supervising attorneys and other senior lawyers are encouraged to provide constant feedback and mentoring to the associates in their group.  Relatedly, every associate has formal mid-year and end-of-year review meetings with their supervising attorney. This lets the associate know what they are doing right and identifies areas that need improvement. During their review, the associate is encouraged to identify their accomplishments, raise any concerns they may have and specify how the firm can assist them in their professional development. Mentoring of associates at Marshall Dennehey has always played a key role in the development and retention of lawyers. I know that every shareholder at Marshall Dennehey recognizes that they had mentors who were instrumental in their success. Consequently, our more experienced attorneys embrace being a mentor themselves. While we have always encouraged and stressed the importance of mentorship to the success and retention of associates, our Executive Advisory Committee and our Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee are both actively engaged in working with our Executive Committee to identify opportunities to further enhance the mentoring process.  Perhaps nothing demonstrates our desire to create a workplace environment that is collaborative and provides opportunities for success better than having a compensation system for attorneys that is not origination-based. This has always been the foundation of our compensation system. Every attorney’s year-over-year compensation is based on their overall contribution to the firm, not just the hours they have billed or the work they have generated. In determining each attorney’s compensation, a number of factors are considered, including how an attorney treats staff members and other attorneys, and whether they are a team player, willing to assist others. Our system encourages our associates to help one another. Because our compensation system is not origination-based, our lawyers are more apt and, in fact, are encouraged to share opportunities with each other. The lack of an origination-based compensation system is also why our senior attorneys are so receptive to having associates communicate and work directly with clients and claims professionals. A non-origination-based compensation system also serves our desire to become a more diverse and inclusive workforce.  When I interview associates from other firms, I am surprised to hear that at some firms, associates are not permitted to communicate directly with the client or claims professional. Apparently, this grows out of some concern that the associate may establish a relationship with the client or claims professional and someday take the client away from the partner. Such a concern does not exist at Marshall Dennehey. We want our associates to have direct communications with claims professionals and clients. In doing so, we make associates part of the team and invest them in serving our clients’ best interests.  Another part of our firm structure and culture that creates a sense of being part of a team is that every shareholder owns one share of stock. We don’t have equity and non-equity shareholders. And we do elevate associates to shareholder. In fact, we do it every year. Just this past year, we welcomed 17 new shareholders. Many of them have spent their entire legal careers at Marshall Dennehey. These 17 newly-elected shareholders have demonstrated that they possess the talent, drive, and dedication to be successful attorneys and, importantly, that they have the qualities that enhance our firm’s culture.  Perhaps there is no better example of Marshall Dennehey’s sense of commitment to its professional and non-professional staff than the fact that, back in the early stages of the pandemic, when we went into a “lockdown” of unknown duration, we decided that we would not lay off any employees or cut compensation. This was done because we at Marshall Dennehey are a community that stands together.  As a community, we emphasize that we talk to each other face-to-face and not through a computer screen or during a scheduled Zoom call. We need to confront issues together and share our insights and experiences. None of this happens if we are working from home. This is why we adopted a hybrid return-to-the-office policy that requires professional and non-professional staff to work a specified minimum number of days in the office. A majority of our professional and non-professional staff have elected to return to their pre-pandemic routine of working in the office every day. This is a testament to our positive and fulfilling working environment. Marshall Dennehey’s desire to create a positive and enriching workplace environment is nothing new. We described our culture and our continued aspirations for that culture on our website well over a decade ago:  •    It’s a culture that treats employees fairly and respectfully, be they shareholders, associates, administrative assistants, receptionists or file clerks.  •    It’s a culture that recognizes and promotes diversity among its members.  •    It's a culture in which lawyers like and trust one another and like and trust their leadership. •    It's a culture that hires employees with the hope and expectation they will finish their careers at the firm.  •    It's a culture that encourages and rewards loyalty, humility and teamwork.  This statement of Marshall Dennehey’s culture remains just as accurate and important today as it did many years ago. It is a culture we are dedicated to preserving.    Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 1, April 2022 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. © 2022 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

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.