Estelle is a Shareholder in the firm’s Professional Liability Department and serves as Supervisor of the Professional Liability Practice Group in Western Pennsylvania, where she oversees the operations and strategic direction of the Professional Liability attorneys in the firm’s Pittsburgh, Erie, Cincinnati, and Cleveland offices. Her practice focuses on various miscellaneous professional liability matters, including errors and omissions, directors and officers liability and management liability.
Insurance Agents & Brokers Liability. A significant portion of Estelle’s practice is dedicated to defending errors and omissions claims against insurance agents and brokers. She represents agents and brokers of all sizes in both pre-suit matters and litigation and is skilled at managing the complex relationships among agents, insureds, and insurance carriers.
Real Estate E&O Liability. As Chair of the firm’s Real Estate Errors and Omissions Liability Practice Group, Estelle represents real estate agents and brokers, appraisers, home inspectors, property management companies, homeowner associations, boards, and individual board members. Her work frequently involves detailed analysis of contracts, association governing documents, and the Uniform Planned Community Act.
Public Entity and Civil Rights. Estelle also maintains a robust practice in public entity and civil rights defense. She represents municipalities, school districts, universities, and other public entities, as well as police chiefs, police officers, constables, humane officers, volunteers, security personnel, and educators – including teachers, professors, and coaches– in a wide range of professional liability and civil rights matters.
Employment Law. In the employment law arena, Estelle counsels employers pre-suit and defends public entities and private companies in claims alleging discrimination and retaliation, in addition to whistleblower claims and allegations of sexual assault. She frequently appears before the EEOC and PHRC and continues representation through litigation in state and federal courts. She also previously served as a pro bono mediator for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Estelle also recently served a two-year term on the firm’s Executive Committee Advisory Council, a select group of firm leaders dedicated to strengthening communication between the Executive Committee and associates, special counsel, and junior shareholders.
Results
Putative Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
In a case where we represented a child care center, a federal district judge from the Western District of Pennsylvania granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice. The plaintiffs were nine minority employees who were involuntarily furloughed in the fall of 2020. They filed suit, alleging their employment was terminated in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the Wage Payment and Collection Law, and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act. The court agreed with the arguments made by the center, finding that the plaintiffs’ class claims were not timely exhausted. The court disagreed with the plaintiffs’ arguments that their charges gave notice of their putative class claims because each charge only focused on the individual complainant’s alleged personal disparate treatment. The court also found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to equitable tolling as they did not exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining essential information bearing on their claim. Accordingly, the court dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice, finding no need to address the other bases for dismissal or the center’s request to strike the class action allegations.
Lawsuit Against Insurance Broker Dismissed
In a case where we represented an insurance broker, a Federal District Judge from the Southern District of West Virginia granted our motion to dismiss and dismissed the suit in its entirety. The plaintiff was a women’s fashion and accessory boutique. The suit arose from a dispute over the plaintiff’s insurance coverage for damages it sustained while being ordered to close by West Virginia’s COVID-19-related orders. The insurance carrier filed a motion to dismiss, and, thereafter, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the carrier. The broker filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims plead against it, including bad faith, West Virginia’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, estoppel and breach of fiduciary duty. The court dismissed the counts of bad faith and Unfair Trade Practices Act, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient allegations to support such claims. The court further explained that the plaintiff alleged very few facts specific to the broker and that the allegations plead did not support any unreasonable conduct by the broker, which is required to establish bad faith or deception. For similar reasons, the court held that the plaintiff’s estoppel claim failed. The plaintiff alleged the broker advised that they would have coverage as a result of the COVID-19 orders. The court found that the plaintiff failed to allege how it relied on those representations or how that reliance was detrimental. The alleged representations occurred months after the plaintiff accepted the policy and did not appear to have any impact on the plaintiff’s request for payments from its insurance carrier. Finally, the court explained that the plaintiff failed to identify any West Virginia authority to establish a breach of fiduciary duty against the broker. Regardless, the court found that the plaintiff failed to allege that it requested specific coverage before the broker procured the policy.
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Real Estate E&O Liability
Pennsylvania Superior Court Confirms RESDL Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Repose
August 17, 2026
The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently concluded that claims under the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law (“RESDL”) are subject to a two-year statute of repose running from the settlement date. This decision will further assist defending errors and omission claims against real estate agents as it bars any RESDL action commenced more than two years after the settlement date regardless of when the defect was discovered. In Hollinger v. Deitrich, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 328 (June 23, 2026), the buyers entered into an agreement of sale in April of 2017 to purchase a residential property. The settlement occurred in June of 2017. The buyers reviewed the seller disclosures that revealed the property had a sump pump in working order and a sump pit. The disclosures further noted no water infiltration into the basement, but disclosed rehab, an addition to the property and prior sewage backup. Shortly after the settlement and closing, the buyers experienced flooding in their basement. In March of 2020, the buyers filed suit against the seller, the buyers’ real estate agent and broker and the seller’s real estate agent and broker alleging various causes of action including a violation of RESDL. The buyers alleged that they sought assurances from the agent defendants that no water infiltration occurred on the property. They further alleged that both agents lived in the area and should have known about the neighborhood water infiltration issues. The trial court granted summary judgment for the seller and the seller’s agents and dismissed the RESDL violation. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gidor v. Mangus d/b/a Mangus Inspections, 345 A.3d 629 (Pa. 2025), the court explained that a statute of limitation begins to run from the time of the injurious occurrence or a discovery of the same. However, a statute of repose runs for a statutorily determined period after a definitively established event. Notably, a statute of repose eliminates a cause of action regardless of when the claim accrues. Because of this, a plaintiff may not invoke the discovery rule or other equitable tolling considerations. RESDL requires that an action for damages, as a result of a violation of this chapter, must be commenced within two years after the date of final settlement. The court found that Section 7311(b) was clear and unambiguous that an action for damages pursuant to this chapter must be commenced within a certain time after a definitely established event that is independent of any injury or discovery of any injury. Since the buyers sued over two years after closing on the property, their statutory claims were time-barred. The court explained that the seller disclosure statement could not support common law or consumer protection claims, as using it would improperly expand remedies beyond the statute’s terms. Accordingly, the court upheld the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that the buyers’ claims under RESDL were barred by the statute of repose. Accordingly, defense counsel should scrutinize complaints involving RESDL claims to ensure that such claims have been timely brought within two-years of the settlement date. A plaintiff will no longer be able to invoke the discovery roll to expand the time frame.
Legal Updates for Real Estate E&O Liability
Protecting Real Estate Professionals with Renewed Strength and Expanded Reach
November 1, 2025
We are excited to announce the reinvigoration of our Real Estate Professional Liability defense team, servicing clients in eight states including Delaware, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Our Real Estate E&O Liability Practice Group represents real estate professionals and related service providers in high-stakes civil litigation across a wide range of claims. We have extensive experience defending real estate brokers, agents, and REALTORS® against malpractice and breach of duty allegations stemming from residential and commercial transactions, as well as those who play critical roles in facilitating these transactions, including title agents, abstractors, surveyors, mortgage brokers, appraisers, home inspectors and title insurance companies. Our attorneys understand the complexities of real estate law and the nuances of professional standards in each of the jurisdictions in which we practice, allowing us to craft targeted defenses that protect our clients’ reputations and livelihoods. We are creative, proactive and strategic, working closely with our clients and their insurers to craft a formidable defense, often helping to resolve matters through negotiation or early motion practice pre-suit. When litigation is unavoidable, we bring deep courtroom experience and an unwavering commitment to defending our clients through trial and appeal, if necessary. We know that for professionals involved in real estate, litigation can be both financially and professionally disruptive. That’s why we prioritize efficient case management, cost-effective strategies and clear communication throughout the life of a case. Our goal is always to protect our clients’ interests while minimizing the impact on their business operations and professional standing. With a team that blends deep legal knowledge and real-world insight into the real estate industry, we are trusted counsel to professionals facing complex and often emotionally-charged disputes. Whether the matter involves a multimillion-dollar commercial deal or a single-family home transaction, our attorneys bring the same level of dedication and attention to detail. We are proud to be a reliable defense partner for real estate professionals and the businesses that support them. When your work is under scrutiny, you need a legal team that understands the stakes—and how to win. Legal Update for Real Estate E&O – November 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.
