.

Gregory J. Kelley

Shareholder

GJKelley@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Gregory J. Kelley

Gregory concentrates the majority of his practice defending matters regarding architects and engineers, construction defect litigation and construction accidents. As well, he maintains a smaller portion of his practice in the defense of product liability claims. He splits his time between our King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and Mount Laurel, New Jersey, offices.

Formerly a litigation specialist for a large casualty insurer in Pennsylvania and Delaware, Gregory was responsible for and developed experience in the evaluation, negotiation and defense strategy for catastrophic personal injury and property damage claims. He also served as an instructor for in-house claims professional seminars on topics of Case Evaluation & Negotiation and Insurance Coverage.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey in 2004, Gregory was with a defense firm where his practice involved defending personal injury and property damage matters, focusing on architect and engineer professional liability and construction claims, products, general, premises liability claims and insurance coverage matters.

In 1982, Gregory graduated from Villanova University with a Bachelor of Science degree. While working as an insurance claims professional, he earned his juris doctor from Widener University School of Law in 1992 and is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 1992)
    • Villanova University (B.S., 1982)
    • New Jersey, 1993
    • Pennsylvania, 1993
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1993
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 1993
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2000
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2000
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Litigation – Construction (2024-2026)
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Construction Law (2026)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Liability Concerns for Architects, Engineers and Construction Professionals: Pennsylvania Architects, Engineering & Construction Defect Issues, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, July 2015
    • “Stating a Claim for Negligent Misrepresentation for a Design Professional’s Supply of Information,” Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 2. June 2016
    • Case Law Alerts, Regular Contributor, 2010-present
    • “The Federal Courts Require Complaints To State A Factually 'Plausible' Claim, And Factually 'Conceivable' (Speculative) Claims May Be Dismissed In The Pleadings Stage,” Defense Digest, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2008
    • “New Jersey: Parental Immunity For 'Negligent' Failure To Supervise Claim Calls For Case-By-Case Analysis Of Defense Strategy, Liability Evaluation And Coverage Determinations,” Defense Digest, Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2006
    • Mediated a favorable settlement of less than $1M for an Architectural firm in a high rise to condominium conversion project wherein the Owner claimed damages in excess of $4.5M for delays and cost increases caused by Architect errors & omissions and negligent construction administration.  The result was obtained at mediation in part due to use of document management and search technology through which it was argued that the results showed that Owner had intentionally withheld or destroyed some pertinent documents that were likely favorable to Architect and went against Owner's credibility.
    • Mediated a favorable settlement for a large Architectural firm that involved construction of an addition to a county prison. The County claimed $4.6M in damages for delays and cost increases, mostly due to negligent construction administration. The Architectural firm had formed a joint venture. Negotiations resulted in a $2M settlement, to which our client only contributed $300K as we were able to show that the substantial majority of the damages claimed pertained to the scope of activities performed by the joint venture partner.
    • Successfully obtained summary judgment dismissal of an architect on the Statute of Repose in a deck collapse/personal injury action where the settlement demand was $2.5 million.
    • Mediated a favorable settlement for an engineering firm in litigation that involved construction defect and delay claims in multiple projects for a chain store owner. Owner's demand against the contractor and three design professionals was $10, million. After two days of mediation, the case settled for an amount well in excess of $2 million, but our client contributed only $170,000.
    • Mediated a favorable settlement for an architect in a design error/construction delay/abandonment claim wherein a $1.3 million claim was resolved for $400,000 without litigation and without discovery expenses being incurred.
    • Obtained a voluntary dismissal of an engineer in a catastrophic personal injury (quadriplegia) construction accident litigation in Philadelphia which has an exposure in excess of $15 million.
    • Obtained dismissal of a township engineer in a double fatality construction accident litigation wherein two workers died while installing new sewer lines in a residential development. Township engineer was joined on theory that it was responsible for design and oversight of construction of the excavated areas occupied by the workers when they were asphyxiated.
    • OSHA 10-Hour Construction Certification

Results

View all

Successfully Defended Architect in Construction Defect Matter

We successfully defended an architect against a $7 million claim brought by a general contractor in connection with the renovation of a historic, city-block-sized building in Philadelphia. The contractor alleged design errors and sought additional damages under the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, inflating its claim to $16 million. During contentious discovery, we exposed contradictions and falsehoods in the contractor’s testimony, leading to a partial summary judgment that dismissed the bulk of claims against our client. Facing a looming trial and a remaining $4 million claim, we worked with the building owner’s counsel to convince the settlement judge of the claims’ lack of merit. The plaintiff filed for bankruptcy, and the final settlement had to be approved in the Bankruptcy Court. The case settled for just $362,500, with our client paying only $181,250—an outstanding result in a high-stakes dispute.

Six-Figure Claim Against Lighting Designer Dismissed

We obtained dismissal of a six-figure claim in Philadelphia County via preliminary objections. The plaintiff homeowner sued a lighting designer for breach of contract, negligence for $23k in remediation costs, statutory remedies for treble damages and legal fees. The plaintiff alleged the lighting designer was a home improvement contractor who violated the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA) and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The plaintiff omitted pertinent facts from the complaint. Using judicial notice, we presented facts from public records to show that the design services were performed in the construction of a new home. We argued that HICPA does not apply to new construction and that the gist of the action doctrine barred the contract claim. The court agreed, dismissed the statutory and contract claims, and remanded the $23k negligence claim to Common Pleas Court arbitration.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

State of Insurance: Q2 Notes From Pennsylvania

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

The Best Defense is Already in the File: Documentation in Civil Rights Litigation

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.

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

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

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

Ohio Supreme Court Holds That a Binding Appraisal Award May Not Be Set Aside Absent Specific Evidence of Manifest Mistake or Fraud

On July 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a rare opinion on the binding effect of an appraisal award in a property insurance policy.  The Court in One Church held: A binding appraisal award will not be set aside unless an error is so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—To plead a claim of mistake with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B), facts alleged in a complaint must constitute the elements of mistake—Allegation that additional, hidden damage was discovered after appraisal award failed to state a claim of mistake that could justify setting aside binding appraisal.  The case arose out of a claim brought by One Church against its insurer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company for roof damage from a storm. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the parties agreed to submit the matter to appraisal. The two appraisers inspected the building, and both appraisers agreed that the damages were $313,271.98. The insurer paid the agreed appraised amount.  Thereafter, the insured submitted a claim for an additional $206,663.09 in damages. The insured argued that these additional damages were not discovered until after the repairs began, and that they should be permitted to submit an additional claim, even though there had already been a binding appraisal of damages. The insurer refused to pay the additional damages, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  In the trial court, the insurer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the binding appraisal award barred any further claims. The insured took the position that additional hidden damages could not be discovered until after the repairs began, and therefore there was a mutual mistake. The trial court dismissed the case on the insurer’s motion, because there was no “evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake”. The Court of Appeals agreed that appraisal awards are generally binding, but noted that an appraisal award can be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the insured had pled mistake with sufficient particularity. The insurer appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court decision dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court found that since the insured had already demanded appraisal, and the appraisal award was binding, “something more than error of judgement, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake” must be pled with particularity, and proven for the insured to override the appraisal award. Since the complaint did not allege fraud or manifest mistake with sufficient particularity, something more than a mere error of judgment, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim.  The complaint in this case did not challenge the appraisal award. It pled that additional damages were discovered that were not apparent when the appraisal was done. It did not specify “who discovered the damages, how they were discovered, where they were found, why they were previously hidden, or why they rise to the level of a manifest mistake that the “appraiser would have corrected...had it been called to his attention”. Id at ¶22 citing Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases deciding the effect of appraisal awards are unusual. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in One Church relies primarily on 19th century case law for its conclusion. This emphasizes the fact that there is minimal case law deciding the effect of binding appraisal clauses in property insurance policies, and makes this case all the more significant. A lengthy dissent was written by Justice Fisher, who would have affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding the case for a decision on the merits. Of course, the decision works both ways, and an insurer dissatisfied with a binding appraisal award will likewise be without further recourse absent evidence of corruption, fraud, misfeasance, or manifest mistake, which must be pled with particularity. To constitute manifest mistake, “the mistake must be of such character that the arbitrator or appraiser would have corrected it had it been called to his attention.”  Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970).  The majority opinion does not specifically identify what would have been sufficient to plead mistake with particularity, or if the insured could have amended the complaint to overcome the deficiencies. The dissent argues that this was not really a case alleging mistake, but rather a question of contract interpretation. The insured did not challenge the appraisal, but argued that the hidden damage was not part of the appraisal, and the appraisal only covered the known damages.  However, this argument did not carry the day with the majority.  *Thomas F. Glassman, a shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s Cincinnati office, filed a brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, in support of the insurer’s position.