.

G. Mark Thompson

President & CEO

Chairman, Executive Committee

GMThompson@mdwcg.com

Portrait of G. Mark Thompson

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2025 Shareholder Class And Special Counsel Promotions

December 13, 2024

Marshall Dennehey is pleased to announce that 10 attorneys have been elected shareholders of the firm effective Jan. 1, 2025. Additionally, two attorneys have been promoted from associate to special counsel. These new shareholders and special counsel represent the firm's four core departments – Casualty, Professional Liability, Health Care and Workers' Compensation – and come from eight of the firm's 19 offices. 

“Marshall Dennehey is proud to celebrate this accomplished group of newly elected shareholders,” said firm President & CEO, G. Mark Thompson. “Their talent, dedication, and hard work have been instrumental to the success of our clients and the firm. We are particularly proud that 40 percent of this class are either women or minority attorneys, reflecting our commitment to diversity and inclusion. We congratulate them on this milestone and eagerly anticipate their continued contributions to our growth and success.”

Promoted to Shareholder

LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK (MELVILLE)
James M. Boyce, Casualty Department (former Special Counsel)
James focuses his practice on New York construction and Labor Law matters, construction defect litigation and general liability matters. His clients include design professionals, owners, contractors and subcontractors when facing construction defect and delay claims, personal injury claims, fee disputes and New York State Labor Law matters. A member of the American Council of Engineering Companies, he is a graduate of the State University of New York at Albany and Hofstra University School of Law. James is admitted to practice in New York. 

Matthew A. Gray, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Matthew primarily defends insurance carriers in disputes involving New York Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claims. A member of the firm’s Fraud/Special Investigation Practice Group, he is experienced in defending clients against intentional/staged losses and medical provider fraud. He has extensive motion practice experience and with alongside his fellow colleagues to obtain favorable decision for each of his clients, whether through litigation or arbitration. Matthew holds a B.A. and M.A. from St. John’s University and earned his J.D. from the Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center. He is admitted to practice in New York.


MOUNT LAUREL, NEW JERSEY
Mari I. Gangadean, Professional Liability Department (former Special Counsel)
Mari is a member of the firm’s Employment Law Practice Group where she defends employers in employment-related claims involving allegations of discrimination based upon age, gender, race, sexual orientation and disability, as well as retaliation and "whistle blowing" in both federal and state courts. She additionally is experienced in insurance coverage and bad faith litigation as well as defending automobile negligence and uninsured/underinsured motorist claims. Mari is a graduate of Mount Holyoke College and Temple University School of Law. She is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Kiara Hartwell, Workers’ Compensation Department (former Associate)
Kiara devotes her practice to workers' compensation litigation on behalf of employers, insurance carriers and self-insureds. She is a member of the New Jersey State Bar Association's Workers' Compensation Executive Committee, a group charged with studying and developing beneficial changes in the administration and procedures pertaining to workers' compensation. Kiara authors the New Jersey updates for Marshall Dennehey’s monthly workers’ compensation newsletter and frequently writes for external publication. Admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, she is a graduate of New York University and Rutgers University School of Law. 

Jonathan C. Magpantay, CPCU, Casualty Department (former Associate)
As a member of the firm’s Fraud and Special Investigation Unit (SIU) Practice Group, Jonathan focuses on large loss and medical provider fraud, including the filing of affirmative litigation recovery and RICO actions across the country. A Chartered Property and Casualty Underwriter (CPCU), he also handles insurance coverage disputes, bad faith litigation and general defense litigation. He has broad experience in New Jersey Personal Injury Protection (PIP) litigation and appears regularly before the courts and administrative bodies. Jonathan is a member of the Asian Pacific American Lawyers Association of New Jersey (APALA-NJ) and the National Filipino American Lawyers Association (NFALA). A graduate of the University of Pittsburgh and Rutgers University School of Law, he is admitted to practice in New Jersey, the District of Columbia, and Michigan. 


Michael J. Sweeney, CPCU, Casualty Department (former Associate)
As a member of the firm’s Fraud and Special Investigation Unit (SIU) Practice Group, Michael investigates and defends large loss and medical provider fraud matters. He has  litigated and filed affirmative litigation recovery and RICO actions in many states, recovering tens of millions of dollars in restitution and recovery on behalf of the insurance industry. A Chartered Property and Casualty Underwriter (CPCU), Michael has extensive experience handling insurance coverage disputes, SIU investigations, bad faith allegations, and general defense litigation. He is a graduate of the University of Delaware and Villanova University School of Law, and is admitted to practice in New Jersey. 

KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Gabor Ovari, Health Care Department (former Associate)
Gabor focuses his practice on the defense of hospitals, health care systems and medical providers in medical malpractice and health care liability matters. He has second-chaired multiple jury trials and is experienced in all aspects of litigation. Gabor is a member of the Pennsylvania and Montgomery County Bar Associations. He is a graduate of Temple University and Widener University School of Law, and is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
Sean J. Reeves, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Sean litigates a wide range of general liability matters representing insureds, self-insureds, and corporations in cases involving motor vehicle negligence, catastrophic product liability matters, personal injury, premises liability, wrongful death and warranty defense. Sean also has experience representing clients in the food and beverage industry in matters involving food allergies, foreign objects, foodborne illness and contamination cases. Sean is a graduate of the University of West Florida; Saint Leo University (MBA); and the University of Florida Levin College of Law. He is admitted to practice in Florida.

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Taniesha K. Salmons, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Taniesha concentrates her practice on premises and product liability litigation. On the premises side, her clients include national and regional grocery retailers, condominium and homeowners’ associations, business owners and private property owners. On the product side, she defends manufacturers and distributors of tools, automatic doors, machinery and other heavy industrial equipment. Taniesha additionally assists in the defense of fire loss and complex product liability cases involving catastrophic losses. A certified arbitrator in Philadelphia, Taniesha is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida. She is a two-time graduate of the University of Miami, where she earned both her Bachelor’s and Juris Doctor degrees.


PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
Michael D. Winsko, Casualty Department (former Associate) 
Michael defends corporations, individuals, and local governments in complex civil litigation matters. In this capacity, he has successfully handled numerous high-exposure premises liability, liquor liability, product liability, and catastrophic injury/wrongful death actions throughout the state and federal courts of Pennsylvania. Michael additionally defends clients against design and construction defect claims, trucking/automobile accidents, fall down incidents and negligent security claims. A graduate of Duquesne University and Duquesne University School of Law, he is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania. 

Associates Promoted to Special Counsel

ORLANDO, FLORIDA
Frank L. Madia, Casualty Department
Frank handles matters involving premises and retail liability, personal injury, product liability, negligent security and automobile liability. As former staff counsel with a national insurance company, he also has substantial experience in insurance coverage matters, business litigation, and real estate transactions. Frank is a 30-year veteran of the New York Air National Guard, where he served as a Staff Judge Advocate before retiring as a Lieutenant Colonel in 2017. He is a graduate of the University at Buffalo, the United States Air Force Judge Advocate Training School, and the Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center. Frank also served 18 years as a local municipal judge in the upstate New York township where he previously resided. He is admitted to practice in Florida and New York. 


HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
Christopher W. Woodward, Professional Liability Department
Christopher focuses his practice on insurance coverage and bad faith litigation. An experienced litigator and former claims examiner, he has a deep understanding of insurance policy and coverage issues arising from commercial, personal, and specialty property and casualty policies, professional liability policies, health/life policies and workers’ compensation policies. He is a graduate of Pennsylvania State University and Widener University School of Law. 

Firm Highlights

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars