When professionals are faced with claims and lawsuits alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and more, Dana provides a vigorous response and defense. As a member of the Professional Liability Department, she routinely defends claims and lawsuits brought against insurance agents and brokers, attorneys, financial entities, large product manufacturers, lenders, directors and officers and other professionals.
Dana also serves as Chair of the firm's Real Estate E&O Liability Practice Group where she provides legal defense for real estate agents, real estate brokers, title agents, home inspectors, appraisers and mortgage brokers in cases brought against them.
Dana understands the disruption and angst professionals experience when claims are brought against them. With over 10 years of civil litigation experience, she approaches each matter with empathy and a strong determination to efficiently resolve the actions brought against her clients. A typical day in her practice might involve securing court dismissals on dispositive motions, mitigating risk via alternative dispute resolution, or collaborating with clients on defense strategy for swift case resolution.
Committed to mentorship and providing guidance to younger attorneys, Dana is also Chair of the firm's Executive Committee Advisory Council, a distinguished group of firm leaders whose purpose is to enhance the communication between the Executive Committee and younger members of the firm's professional ranks, including associates, special counsel and junior shareholders.
Dana is a member of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS) and serves on the PLUS Mid-Atlantic Chapter Steering Committee. She frequently contributes articles to PLUS Blog. She is also an active member of the Professional Liability Defense Federation (PLDF) Insurance Law Committee, as well as the Philadelphia Bar Association having previously served on its Young Lawyers Division Executive Committee. She has been recognized by the Best Lawyers organization as a Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch since 2021, and she has been selected a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star since 2019.
A graduate of Emory University, she received her juris doctor from the Villanova University School of Law where she was a Dean's Merit Scholarship recipient. While at Villanova, Dana served as a managing editor for student work for the Villanova Sports & Entertainment Law Journal.
Results
Montgomery County Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Insurance Broker
We obtained dismissal of our insurance broker client on Motion for Summary Judgment in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, on the basis of no duty breached, and lack of causation. Claimants asserted a professional negligence theory for allegedly allowing a commercial insurance policy to lapse, failing to notify the policyholder claimant of the lapse or cancellation, and allowing a subsequent gap in coverage to exist after the policy cancelled, when an underlying loss occurred. However, after completed discovery depositions and expert discovery, we successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing the policy cancelled because of the policyholder’s own failure to comply with premium audit requirements, rather than any liability or breach of standard of care by the insurance broker.
MD Successfully Defends Low Verdict Against Insurance Broker that Plaintiff Challenged on Appeal
In a case where an insurance broker faced claims of professional negligence, Carol VanderWoude (Philadelphia) successfully defended the plaintiff’s appeal from a verdict obtained by Tim Ventura and Dana Gittleman (Philadelphia). The verdict against our client, an independent insurance broker, was well below the lost value of UIM coverage (i.e., $1 million), which the plaintiff sought to recover based on an alleged breach of the professional standard of care in failing to procure an endorsement for $ 1 million in UIM coverage on the plaintiff’s decedent’s commercial auto policy. The verdict is notable because, at trial, the client gave unexpected testimony which impacted liability, and when confronted with the client’s new trial testimony, our standard of care expert conceded a breach of the professional standard of care. Still, causation/damages were contested, and it was disputed at trial that the plaintiff’s decedent would have actually received $1 million in coverage. Tim elicited testimony on cross-examination of the plaintiff’s expert to show that there was no evidence establishing the insurer would have provided additional UIM coverage even if the endorsement had been purchased. Prior to trial the parties entered into a stipulation stating that damages were capped at the value of the lost coverage, $1 million. Plaintiff’s counsel challenged the low verdict on various grounds, focusing on the fact that our expert conceded a breach of a standard of care based on the client’s unexpected trial testimony. He argued that, as a matter of law, the damages amount was the lost value of the coverage and the verdict should be increased to $1 million. The trial court agreed with our arguments, raised in opposition to the plaintiff’s post-trial motions, that the low verdict amount was supported by the record and that the plaintiff’s requests for post-trial relief were otherwise waived for various reasons. The Superior Court affirmed in a unanimous decision.
Thought Leadership
PLUS Blog
Insurance Broker Best Practices to Reduce AI-Related E&O Risk
August 25, 2026
Insurance agencies and brokerages, like most businesses, are increasingly using artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and Gemini, in their daily operations. AI can provide significant advantages, including greater efficiency, enhanced productivity, and cost savings. For example, brokers may use AI to generate policy comparisons and proposals, accelerating the quoting process. However, these benefits come with risks. AI-generated information may be inaccurate, leading to improper advice, coverage misrepresentations, or binding coverage that violates underwriting guidelines. Overreliance on AI may also increase exposure to errors and omissions (E&O) claims and litigation. Insurance agencies can reduce AI-related risks by following these five best practices: 1. Require Licensed Producer Oversight AI can improve efficiency, but it does not replace the professional judgment or responsibility of a licensed producer. Treat AI-generated content as a preliminary draft that may contain errors. Before any quote, proposal, coverage summary, or policy comparison is provided to a client, a qualified individual should independently verify all material information, including coverage terms, limits, deductibles, exclusions and endorsements, against the applicable policy forms and source documents. 2. Establish a Formal AI Policy Agencies should adopt a written AI policy that defines: Approved AI tools; Information that may or may not be entered into AI platforms; AI outputs requiring licensed producer review; Tasks AI may assist with or perform autonomously, if any; and Permitted and prohibited uses. Approved uses may include document summarization and administrative support. Prohibited uses should include independently binding coverage, modifying limits, providing coverage advice, or communicating coverage determinations without human review. The policy should be distributed to all employees, supported by training, and reinforced through written acknowledgment of compliance. 3. Manage Third-Party AI and Data Security Risks Confidential client information, such as loss runs, financial records, proprietary information, or other sensitive data, should not be entered into unapproved public AI platforms. Agencies should also review contracts with AI vendors to ensure they adequately address confidentiality, cybersecurity controls, data retention, indemnification, insurance requirements, and limitations of liability. 4. Document AI Usage As with other client communications and insurance placement decisions, agencies should maintain records of AI-related activity. Documentation should reflect the client’s requests, information available to the producer, AI-generated output, any modifications or verification performed by agency personnel, communications with the client, and the coverage ultimately procured. Such records may provide valuable evidence in defending a future E&O claim. 5. Review Insurance Coverage Agencies should review their own E&O policies to determine whether any exclusions, limitations, or endorsements affect coverage for AI-related activities. Likewise, agencies should be aware of any AI-related coverage restrictions contained in policies they recommend or place for clients. Conclusion AI is a valuable tool that can help insurance agents and brokers improve efficiency and service. However, it should supplement rather than replace the oversight, expertise, and professional judgment of a licensed producer. This article was originally published on PLUS Blog, the blog of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society, on August 20, 2026. All rights reserved. Further duplication without prior permission is prohibited.
PLUS Blog
The Importance of Memorializing Settlement Terms
April 27, 2026
Settlement discussions often move quickly, and parties may assume that agreement on a dollar amount is enough to finalize a deal. But when material terms are left unspoken or undocumented, even routine negotiations can lead to costly and time‑consuming motion practice.
