.

G. Mark Thompson

President & CEO

Chairman, Executive Committee

GMThompson@mdwcg.com

Portrait of G. Mark Thompson

Defense Digest

Message From the Executive Committee

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022

December 1, 2022

by G. Mark Thompson

As the holidays approach, I want to thank our loyal clients and everyone at Marshall Dennehey for helping transform another challenging year into a success.

2022 produced a unique set of circumstances for the country at large and our industry in particular.

These included the Omicron surge at the beginning of the year, pitting a relatively milder variant against a largely vaccinated population. It was somehow less a threat but highly transmissible and, before long, the number of us testing positive had soared. This had a disruptive effect on businesses large and small and got many off to a slow start.

No sooner did Omicron recede did the Great Resignation intensify, which ultimately led to some 40 million Americans changing jobs. Perhaps you are one of them and now settling into a new position. We know both the claims and legal industry saw unprecedented movement this year and often fierce competition for talent.

But there is more. While these events were unfolding, the rate of inflation reached a 40-year high, the stock market tumbled, and our country’s supply chains stalled.

If it seemed like business was anything but usual, that is because it was. Anything but usual.

And yet, through all the uncertainty, Marshall Dennehey remained a beacon of reliability to clients and opportunity for employees. There we stood. An Am Law 200 law firm with 19 offices in seven states. Resolute. Proud to be celebrating 60 years in business. Grateful for our many blessings.

In one of the tightest labor markets in history, we continued to attract legal talent. Throughout the year, we recruited. We hired. We onboarded associates, lateral shareholders with portable business, and, in October, the former Delany Law Group—absorbing much of that firm.

How did we attract such extraordinary trial talent when a number of our competitors had approached them as well? In a conversation before his arrival, the Delany Law Group’s founder, Jack Delany, explained it was Marshall Dennehey’s “integrity, impeccable reputation and progressive ideals.”

This year, in addition to bringing associates, shareholders, and another law firm into Marshall Dennehey, we opened a brand new office in New Haven, Connecticut. In less than a year, it has become one of the fastest growing in the firm.

It has also been energizing, throughout the year, to reunite in person with clients from California to London, England, and resume attending and presenting at industry conferences. We had really missed the personal connections and have enjoyed congratulating so many of you on your promotions since we had last been together.

In that same spirit, one of the most important, consequential, and enduring things we did this year was stand up Marshall Dennehey’s next generation of leaders. Careers advanced at every level, including practice department directors, managing attorneys of our regional offices, practice group silos, and administrative departments. At our Annual Shareholder’s Meeting, 20 different attorneys were elected to shareholder effective January 1st. All this was done with an eye toward diversity and inclusion and was in keeping with an ongoing commitment to elevate women to positions of leadership and responsibility in the firm.

Such progress has attracted attention. In a large-scale, independent survey of law firms to determine where associates are happiest, BTI awarded the firm a coveted spot on its “Associate Satisfaction A-Listers.” Women attorneys, in particular, distinguished Marshall Dennehey for programs that associates value most. We were also named a 2022 “Tipping the Scales” law firm by the Diversity & Flexibility Alliance for our advancement of women in the profession.

This recognition complimented other accolades. Marshall Dennehey was named a “2023 Best Law Firm” in multiple practice areas, both nationally and across numerous regions of the country, by U.S. News – Best Lawyers®. It was recognized by BTI Consulting Group as one of the “Most Recommended Law Firms” in the country by corporate counsel.

Because we have long considered our culture one of the firm’s greatest assets, it was also nice to be applauded, for the tenth consecutive year, as a “Best Place to Work” by the Philadelphia Business Journal.

And as we enter a season of giving, it's worth noting that’s exactly how we celebrated the firm’s 60th Anniversary. By giving back. This year, in lieu of throwing ourselves a big gala, Marshall Dennehey celebrated 60 years in business by providing thousand dollar grants to 60 different charities in the local communities in which we do business. This benefited literacy programs, humane societies, homeless shelters, food banks, libraries, legal aid clinics, substance abuse programs, disease treatment centers, and a host of other worthy causes.

It was a rewarding experience that left us mindful of the significant need all around us.

Folks, it has been quite a year. One marked by adversity but filled with hope, resilience, and the thrill that comes from solving complex problems together. Whether you are a client or an employee, thank you for your contribution to these efforts and for making Marshall Dennehey the extraordinary firm that it is.

On behalf of the Executive Committee, we wish you and your families the very best of holidays and a new year filled with success, happiness, and good health.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney