.

Daniel D. Krebbs

Portrait of Daniel D. Krebbs

With three decades of litigation experience, Dan is a trusted advocate for clients facing complex, high-exposure claims. He focuses his practice on the defense of catastrophic matters involving Trucking & Transportation Liability, Premises & Retail Liability, Property Litigation, Construction Injury Litigation, Automobile Liability, and other serious casualty claims.

Dan is recognized for his ability to navigate high-stakes litigation with precision and efficiency. He has tried numerous civil cases to verdict in state and federal courts throughout Pennsylvania, consistently delivering results that protect his clients’ interests. By collaborating with leading medical, vocational, and construction experts, he develops defense strategies that not only withstand scrutiny but also drive down potential exposure and settlement costs.

Honored in The Best Lawyers in America®, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants, Dan is widely regarded for his experience and results in catastrophic and complex litigation. Clients and insurers rely on him for his strategic insight, courtroom skill, and unwavering commitment to achieving the best possible outcomes when the stakes are highest.

As a senior shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s largest department, Dan also serves as a resource and mentor to colleagues, sharing his trial experience and deep knowledge of casualty law to strengthen the team and advance client success.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 1994)
    • Duquesne University (B.A., 1990)
    • Pennsylvania, 1994
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1998
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2023-2026)
    • BV® Distinguished™ Rating by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Negligent Security Claims, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, January 25th, 2023
    • Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists Update, Dispute Resolution Institute’s (DRI) 2021 Personal Injury Practicum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November, 2021
    • Landowner Liability For Third Party Criminal Acts, CLE Presentation for PBI, December 2005
    • Defending The Automobile Injury Case, Presented for The Institute of Paralegal Education, June 23, 2004
    • "Tuning Out The Siren Song Of Sales Displays," Defense Digest, Vol. 13, No. 4, December 2007
    • "The Pennsylvania Superior Court Invalidates Rule 212.2 Sanctions," Defense Digest, Vol. 8, No. 4, December 2002
    • "Plaintiff in Products Liability Suit Permitted To Introduce Evidence Of Subsequent Design Change," The Journal of the Allegheny County Bar Association, March 9, 2001 and Defense Digest, Vol. 6, No. 6, December 2000
    • Successfully defeated a tort action with claims for compensatory and punitive damages where the demand at trial was $3 million by convincing the jury that my client's alleged conduct was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's post-traumatic epilepsy and cognitive impairment.
    • Successfully defeated a tort action brought on behalf of a minor pedestrian severely injured following a collision with the client driver by convincing the jury that the client was not negligent.  The demand at trial was $1.5 million.
    • Successfully defeated a tort action where the demand was $1.5 million at trial for a claim by an injured security guard who fell from a loading dock sustaining significant injuries to her neck, shoulder, wrist and low back, by convincing the jury that the client was not negligent in maintaining the property.
    • Through the use of a construction management expert, an architect and a real estate expert, I was able to bring the plaintiffs' settlement demand down from $1 million to $100,000 in a case involving claims of negligent construction management.
    • With our use of medical experts, vocational experts and an expert civil engineer, the plaintiff's settlement demand was reduced from $1.25 million to $375, 000 in a product liability matter.
    • Deverant v. Selective Insurance Company, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1204 (E.D. Pa. 2003)
    • Transamerican Office Furniture v. Traveler's Property & Casualty, et al, 222 F.Supp.2d 689 (E.D.Pa.)
    • Sieradzki v. Realen Homes Construction Company, et al, 34 Pa. D&C 4th 264 (1997)

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.