.

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

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

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

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. 

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.