.

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

Thought Leadership

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Holds That Public Policy Does Not Prevent Insurance Coverage for Sex Trafficking Claims

On July 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an opinion emphasizing the limited circumstances in which courts may invoke public policy to bar insurance coverage, holding in Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (U.S. Branch) v. RI Settlement Trust that Pennsylvania public policy does not preclude coverage for claims alleging that insureds enabled or profited from human sex trafficking. The decision rejects a line of federal district court decisions predicting otherwise and reinforces that Pennsylvania courts will invoke the public policy doctrine only in the clearest of circumstances. RI Settlement is particularly significant because it arose on certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, giving the Supreme Court the opportunity to resolve an issue on which federal courts had predicted Pennsylvania law differently. RI Settlement arose out of four separate civil complaints in which the underlying plaintiffs alleged that, as minors, they were the victims of human sex trafficking at various hotels in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs claimed that the hotel owners were negligent in failing to stop the sex trafficking from happening at their hotels. After the filing of the lawsuits, the hotel owners sought coverage under their Commercial General Liability policies. The insurers initially defended the hotels under Reservation of Rights letters, though the carriers later filed Declaratory Judgment actions seeking declarations that they did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify. In short, the insurers argued in the alternative that they did not owe any obligation to provide coverage based upon Pennsylvania public policy (because the claims violated the Human Trafficking Law – 18 Pa.C.S. § 3011) and the terms and conditions of the policy. On motions for judgment on the pleadings, the District Court found for the insurers on the basis of public policy: There is no duty to defend or indemnify against actions arising out of an insured's criminal conduct related to the sex trafficking of minors. The Court appreciates that it may make public policy the basis of a judicial decision only in “the clearest of cases.” See Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 589 A.2d 854, 868 (Pa. 2004) (quoting Hall v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 648 A.2d 755, 760 (Pa. 1994)). Yet, the Court strains to imagine a clearer case than the one presented here in which the facts alleged indicate that Policyholders engaged in criminal conduct in violation of Pennsylvania's Human Trafficking Law. The hotel owners appealed the matter to the Third Circuit, which petitioned the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to grant review of two certified questions of law: (1) whether Pennsylvania law had an “overriding public policy” against sex trafficking, such that an insurer’s duty to defend and/or indemnify is abrogated when an insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from such trafficking; and (2) if yes, is that duty abrogated whenever the insured’s alleged conduct would constitute a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Trafficking statute. Importantly, the certified questions did not ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the policies afforded coverage under their terms. Rather, the court was asked only whether Pennsylvania public policy independently barred coverage. As a result, the court assumed for purposes of answering the certified questions that the insurers otherwise owed a duty to defend and addressed only the public policy issue, leaving all policy-based coverage defenses for further proceedings. Because the court concluded that the answer to the first certified question was “no”, it did not reach the second issue. In reaching its determination that Pennsylvania public policy does not prohibit insurance coverage for sex trafficking claims, the court limited the impact of its decision in Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 855 A. 2d 854, 855 (Pa. 2004), which the RI Settlement opinion emphasized as having been an “Opinion Announcing Judgment of the Court” – or a plurality opinion. In Greenfield, the insured homeowner was sued by the estate of his houseguest who overdosed from heroin that he sold to her. The matter wound its way to the Supreme Court, which determined that the insurer did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify based upon Pennsylvania public policy, which criminalized the sale and use of heroin as a Schedule I narcotic. In RI Settlement, the court “decline[d] the invitation” to extend the rationale of the three-justice plurality in Greenfield beyond cases involving Schedule I controlled substances. In so holding, the justices in RI Settlement refused to “divine an overriding public policy pronouncement by the General Assembly by virtue of its enactment of the Human Trafficking Law.” The opinion further states that it is not “within the purview of this Court to rank the magnitude of the public policy underlying the various crimes defined in the Crimes Code. It is sufficient for the work of the courts to know that the General Assembly has identified conduct it deems harmful and dangerous to the maintenance of an orderly society and criminalized it.” While the court declined to declare that Pennsylvania public policy prohibits coverage for sex trafficking claims, the opinion in RI Settlement expressly states that insurers are free to include appropriate exclusionary language for such causes of actions in their policies if they desire to do so. It will certainly be interesting to see whether the insurance industry accepts the court’s invitation, or perhaps whether the Pennsylvania legislature steps in to clarify that sex trafficking claims are indeed of the type or magnitude that they should not be covered by insurance. In any event, we will, of course, continue to monitor this and other insurance coverage issues that arise before courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and throughout our firm’s geographic footprint and around the country.

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

Court Allows Recklessness and Punitive Damages Claims to Proceed After Work‑Zone Crash

In a case where a defendant filed preliminary objections against allegations of recklessness and punitive damages, the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas denied these preliminary objections. This case stems from a motor vehicle accident, where the defendants car struck the plaintiffs car after the defendant allegedly fell asleep at the wheel, going at a high rate of speed, through a construction work zone. Defendant first objected to the general allegations throughout the plaintiff’s complaint pertaining to “reckless” conduct contending that there were insufficient factual allegations to support the claim of reckless conduct. Defendant next objected to the plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, as punitive damages may only be assessed against a motorist for falling asleep while driving if there is further evidence to prove driver was aware of their drowsiness and risk of falling asleep. Lastly, defendant objected to plaintiffs complaint, claiming it lacked specificity. The court here found that the plaintiff had included in the complaint specific allegations related to the defendant’s alleged recklessness, including allegations regarding speeding in a work zone, almost striking the flagger, falling asleep at the wheel, and striking the plaintiffs vehicle which was stopped. Additionally, the court noted that falling asleep does not come without warning. The court found that these allegations were sufficient to support an allegation of recklessness at the pleadings stage.

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. 

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Exclusion of Legal Malpractice Expert as Impermissible Net Opinion

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias obtained a favorable decision on behalf of their client in a case centering on the admissibility of expert testimony in legal malpractice actions. In Martin v. Loury, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the exclusion of a plaintiff's legal malpractice expert, holding that the expert's opinions on causation and damages were too speculative to support the malpractice claim. The legal malpractice action arose from an underlying employment dispute involving claims for damages stemming from the breach of an employment agreement. The plaintiff alleged that defense counsel committed malpractice during a second trial by failing to recall the plaintiff as a rebuttal witness after the employer's CEO testified. According to the plaintiff's expert, additional rebuttal testimony would have bolstered the plaintiff's damages claims and led to a more favorable result. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division rejected that theory. The courts found that the expert could not explain how the proposed rebuttal testimony would have altered the outcome of the underlying case or resulted in any additional recoverable damages. Notably, the trial judge in the underlying employment matter had already rejected the CEO's testimony as not credible and had accepted the damages analysis advanced by the plaintiff. The court had also determined that the amount of damages was not genuinely disputed. As a result, the expert's opinion that additional rebuttal testimony would have produced a better outcome was unsupported by the record and based on speculation rather than evidence. The Appellate Division agreed that neither the plaintiff nor the expert could identify any actual damages attributable to the alleged malpractice or demonstrate the required element of proximate causation. The court further upheld the trial court's application of New Jersey's net opinion doctrine, finding that the expert failed to provide the necessary "why and wherefore" supporting his conclusion that the attorney's conduct caused a compensable loss. Because the opinions rested on unquantified possibilities rather than demonstrable facts, they were inadmissible. Key Takeaway for Legal Malpractice Defendants For attorneys and firms defending legal malpractice claims, Martin v. Loury underscores the importance of closely scrutinizing an opponent's expert report on the critical elements of proximate causation and damages. The decision demonstrates that a malpractice claim cannot survive where an expert merely speculates that different litigation tactics might have produced a better result. Instead, the plaintiff must present admissible expert testimony grounded in the record that explains how the alleged attorney error probably changed the outcome of the underlying matter and resulted in measurable damages.

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.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

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

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent