Our General Liability Practice Group regularly defends insureds, insurance companies and self-insured entities in a variety of matters including:
- Owners and contractors protective liability
- Owners, landlords and tenants coverage
- Bailor/bailee
- Premises liability
- Assault and battery
- Security
- Commercial liability
- Advertising injuries
- Defamation
- Privacy
- Elevator incidents
- False arrest
- Malicious prosecution cases
- First-party and third-party property damage cases
- Fire legal liability litigation
We understand that every client is concerned with the extent of legal fees and costs incurred. Savings are achieved in a number of ways. With offices situated within a seven-state region, we are able to provide our clients with defense attorneys who are close to and very familiar with the litigation forum. Secondly, we are cognizant of the need to deliver legal services in a prompt and efficient manner, coupled with considerable emphasis on being results-oriented.
Results
Defense Jury Verdict Obtained Before the Delaware Superior Court
We received a defense jury verdict before the Delaware Superior Court, New Castle County. Although liability was undisputed at trial, damages were disputed. The plaintiff sought damages for head, neck, back and left shoulder injuries. He had $350,000 in future medical bills and $78,000 in past medical bills that he could board. The plaintiff also had a $5 million lost wage claim that we were able to get dismissed prior to trial on a motion in limine.
Defense Verdict Obtained in a Theft Case in New York Civil Court
We obtained a defendants’ verdict in New York Civil Court where we represented an appliance company and their employee, who was accused of stealing a Rolex watch. The client’s employee installed a light fixture in the plaintiff’s residence. After the installer left the residence, the 85-year-old plaintiff could not locate his $31,000 Rolex watch. He filed a claim with his homeowner’s carrier and received $500 because the watch was not scheduled. He also filed a police report. He then retained counsel and commenced suit against the defendants for conversion, breach of contract and negligent hiring. During dispositions of both the plaintiff and his wife, we elicited testimony that neither had any proof that the defendants stole his Rolex watch. He further elicited that no criminal charges were ever brought against the employee. We filed for summary judgment, denying the allegations, and included affidavits from the employee and the owner of the appliance company in which it was indicated that there were no prior complaints regarding the company and/or the installer. The motion was denied. At the trial conducted in June 2025, Chris again elicited testimony from the plaintiff that he had no proof that the installer stole his Rolex watch, nor did the plaintiff provide any proof that the installer’s employer engaged in negligent hiring, as there were no prior complaints regarding this employee. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, we again moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the plaintiff had not established his claim for damages or proven the allegations in the complaint. The motion was denied. Rather than hearing oral summations, the court directed the parties to submit written summations. In our written summation, we outlined dismissal of the case, arguing that any finding against the defendants for theft would be tantamount to accusing them of stealing when neither the police nor the district attorney found any probable cause to criminally charge them. The court dismissed the case in its entirety.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Statutory Employer Immunity Bars Negligence Claim Against Youth Residential Operator
July 20, 2026
In a non-precedential opinion, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania determined the defendant residential operator was a statutory employer of the plaintiff, an employee of a kitchen contractor, and thus, was immune from the plaintiff’s negligence action. While the plaintiff worked in the kitchen of a youth residential institution, he was injured when a grill he was cleaning fell on his arm. The plaintiff was an employee of the food service contractor that was hired by the defendant to provide food services at the property. The defendant leased the property and operated the youth residential institution on the property. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit and, after discovery, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. In its motion for summary judgment, the defendant argued that it was immune from the plaintiff’s negligence action under the Workers’ Compensation Act since it was a statutory employer. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the defendant sufficiently occupied the kitchen on the property to satisfy the second factor of the McDonald test. The Commonwealth Court ruled that, with regard to the second factor, an employer’s occupancy or control must be actual but need not be exclusive. The Commonwealth Court also ruled that an employer only needs to prove either occupancy or control, not both. In reviewing the evidence, the Commonwealth Court agreed with the trial court’s ruling that the defendant occupied the property and thus, satisfied the second factor of the McDonald test. The Commonwealth Court held that the defendant was a statutory employer under the Act and was immune from the plaintiff’s negligence action. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s order.
Case Law Alerts
Pennsylvania Court Finds Fact Issues on Visibility of Freestanding Sign’s Legs
July 20, 2026
In a non-precedential opinion, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that when determining whether a freestanding sign was an open and obvious condition, the legs of the sign were to be considered separately and warranted separate analysis. The plaintiff, while walking into the defendant store, tripped and fell on a leg of a freestanding lottery sign that was placed on the sidewalk outside of the store. While the plaintiff admitted she was able to observe the sign prior to the incident, she claimed that she did not notice the legs of the freestanding frame that supported the sign. The plaintiff filed negligence claims against the defendant store and, after discovery, the defendant store filed a motion for summary judgment. In its motion for summary judgment, the defendant store argued that the sign was an open and obvious condition. In her response in opposition, the plaintiff argued that the legs of the sign were not open and obvious, and created a tripping hazard. In support of her opposition, the plaintiff presented expert reports. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and ruled that there were no genuine issues of fact as to whether the sign was open and obvious. The trial court concluded that it did not consider the legs separate from the sign as a matter of law when considering the issue of whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious. Instead, the trial court found the sign with its legs was open and obvious. In support of its ruling, the trial court relied upon the Superior Court of Pennsylvania’s reasoning in Larose v. Berish, 334 A.3d 406 (Pa. Super. 2002). The plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that created genuine issues of material fact as to the open and obvious nature of the sign’s legs. The Superior Court held the trial court erred when it determined that Larose required it to consider the sign and its legs as one to determine whether it was open and obvious. The Superior Court reasoned that Larose does not stand for the proposition that an object resting on another object must be considered as one for purposes of determining whether the condition is open and obvious. Instead, the Superior Court found the circumstances in Larose to be distinguishable and that Larose did not dictate as a matter of law that the legs of the sign created an open and obvious danger. The Superior Court ruled that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant store and reversed the order.
