.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Shareholder Class and Special Counsel Promotions

December 15, 2025

Marshall Dennehey is pleased to announce that 16 attorneys have been elected shareholders of the firm effective Jan. 1, 2026. 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 11 of the firm’s 19 offices. 

“We are delighted to welcome this outstanding class of newly elected shareholders,” said G. Mark Thompson, President & CEO of Marshall Dennehey. “Each of them has demonstrated exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership in advancing the interests of our clients and strengthening our firm. We look forward to the impact these individuals will make as leaders in our profession and contributors to our collective success.”

Promoted to Shareholder

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Holli K. Archer, Health Care Department (former Associate)
Holli defends health care practitioners, medical providers, and dental providers, against all manner of medical and dental malpractice suits. She also handles licensure matters before State Boards of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing. She is a member of the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations and is recognized as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star and a Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch. She is a graduate of the University of Scranton and Loyola University New Orleans School of Law. Holli is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania.

Jack A. Bennardo, Jr., Casualty Department (former Associate)
Jack primarily focuses his practice on construction injury and construction defect litigation, and trucking and transportation litigation. He provides legal counsel to construction companies and contractors, commercial property owners/managers, trucking companies, amusement parks and recreational facilities, and insurance companies in Pennsylvania. Jack also handles a wide array of serious loss cases where there is often catastrophic injury or death in the areas of premises liability, product liability, construction accident, construction defect, commercial trucking, insurance coverage, and sports, amusement and entertainment litigation. He is a graduate of Fordham University and Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New York. 

Julianne M. Curry, Casualty Department (former Special Counsel)
Julianne has over 20 years of experience representing clients in a wide variety of high-exposure trucking, motor vehicle, construction accident, premises liability and construction defect litigation. She frequently litigates multiparty matters and has served as a certified arbitrator for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. She is a graduate of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, and Rutgers Law School. Julianne is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania. 

KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Michael R. Duffy, Workers’ Compensation Department (former Associate)
Michael focuses his practice on defending employers and insurance carriers in matters related to workers’ compensation. He represents employers across numerous industries including trucking, construction, landscaping, manufacturing, hospitality and long-term care. Michael is a member of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Coalition, Brehon Law Society, Philadelphia Bar Association and Judge Alexander F. Barbieri Workers’ Compensation Inn of Court. He earned his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Pennsylvania State University and his juris doctor from Widener University Delaware Law School. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Robert A. Morton, IV, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Rob concentrates his practice in the areas of construction accident and construction defect litigation, premises liability, trucking and commercial motor carrier liability, and veterinary malpractice and licensure defense. He regularly provides legal counsel to developers, general contractors, subcontractors, and hotel operators, as well as trucking companies and a national bus company. He is a graduate of Saint Joseph’s University and Widener University School of Law and is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
Nicholas A. Cerimele, Health Care Department (former Associate)
Nicholas devotes the entirety of his practice to the defense of physicians, nurses, hospitals, physicians assistants and physician practice groups in professional liability litigation. He has more than 20 years of experience representing health care providers in medical malpractice cases. Nicholas is a graduate of Pennsylvania State University and the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania. 


MOUNT LAUREL, NEW JERSEY
Brielle K. Winkler, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Brielle provides legal counsel and representation in the areas of automobile liability, underinsured/uninsured motorists claims, premises liability and condominium/community association law. Her clients include small businesses, condominium associations, large public companies and insurance carriers. Brielle also handles personal injury matters related to auto liability on behalf of retail establishments, building owners, homeowners, drivers and businesses. She is a graduate of Towson University and Rutgers Law School, and she is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 

ROSELAND, NEW JERSEY
Nataliana A. Guida, Health Care Department (former Associate)
Nataliana (Talia) devotes her practice to medical malpractice litigation, defending the interests of physicians, dentists, nurses, hospitals, and other healthcare providers and institutions. Talia is also experienced in handling licensing and disciplinary board matters. She is a graduate of Quinnipiac University and New York Law School, and is admitted to practice in New Jersey. 

PURCHASE, NEW YORK
Sanford G. Jacobs, Casualty Department (former Special Counsel)
Sanford has over 30 years of experience in trucking and transportation liability, general liability, premises liability, motor vehicle liability, construction injury litigation, product liability and toxic torts. His extensive experience includes handling cases from inception through jury trial throughout the New York Metropolitan area, upstate New York and the state of Florida. He is a graduate of the State University of New York at Oneonta and Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School. He is admitted to practice in New York, the District of Columbia and Florida.

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA
Seth B. Altman, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Seth focuses his practice on representing and defending clients in insurance coverage and first-party property matters. Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Seth served as in-house counsel for two insurance companies where he litigated first-party property cases and was a member of the assignment of benefits and catastrophe (hurricane) divisions. Seth is also experienced in investigation, and he counseled and instructed his former claims departments in pre-suit matters. He is a graduate of the University of Florida and Albany Law School and is admitted to practice in Florida and New York. 

Holly M. Hamilton, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Holly focuses on a wide variety of professional liability litigation matters in state and federal court. A significant portion of her practice includes the defense of a variety of employment matters, including discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims from the administrative (i.e., EEOC) stage through litigation. Another significant part of her practice consists of director and officer disputes in not-for-profit condominium and other community associations. She is a graduate of Florida International University and the Maurice A. Dean School of Law at Hofstra University. Holly is admitted to practice in Florida, New Jersey and New York. 

Matthew J. Wildner, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Matthew focuses his practice on commercial litigation, construction defect litigation and a wide variety of professional liability litigation matters. Litigating in both state and federal courts, he defends design and construction professionals independently as well as through their insurance carriers in complex construction defect suits involving a variety of claims, such as building and design-related deficiencies, code violations, negligence, breach of contract and fraud, as well as insurance coverage claims under GL policies. Matthew additionally represents condominium associations, directors, officers, and property managers in matters involving breach of fiduciary duty, violations of governing documents, and construction and maintenance obligations. He is a graduate of the University of Florida and Stetson University College of Law and is admitted to practice in Florida. 

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
Kathleen A. Carlson, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Kathleen focuses her practice on automobile liability matters with an emphasis on uninsured/underinsured motorist claims. She also represents a wide array of clients in general liability matters. She is a graduate of the University of Florida and the University of Florida Levin College of Law. She is admitted to practice in Florida. 

Taylor A. Naughton, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Taylor focuses his practice on construction defect litigation, representing contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, developers and design professionals when claims are made against them. He routinely counsels clients in construction disputes, handling pre-suit investigations, multi-party claims, code violations, negligence and breach of contract claims. He is a graduate of Jacksonville University and Florida Coastal School of Law. Taylor is admitted to practice in Florida. 

ORLANDO
Carolin A. Pacheco, Professional Liability (former Associate)
Carolin defends insurance carriers in first-party insurance coverage claims and complex matters pertaining to coverage and bad faith claims. She also represents condominium association boards in directors and officers suits, as well as real estate agents, brokers, and appraisers in errors and omissions claims. She also litigates FDCPA claims and suits brought by debtors against the collection services assigned to recover the debt. Carolin is a graduate of the University of Central Florida and Stetson University College of Law. She is admitted to practice in Florida. 

TAMPA, FLORIDA
Sean P. Greenwalt, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Sean focuses his practice on amusement, sports, and recreation matters as well as fraud and personal injury protection (PIP) disputes. He litigates a variety of complex matters on behalf of corporations involving premises liability, commercial auto liability, catastrophic loss, wrongful death and commercial contract disputes. He also has experience defending first-party auto coverage suits and conducting examinations under oath. Sean is a member of the Florida Defense Lawyers Association and Claims Litigation Management Alliance. A graduate of Old Dominion University and Ave Maria School of Law, he is admitted to practice in Florida. 

Associates Promoted to Special Counsel

MELVILLE, NEW YORK
Ian L. Glick, Casualty Department
Ian handles cases from inception through resolution involving New York State Labor Law, construction accidents, premises liability, product liability, auto liability, general liability and subrogation claims. He is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin and St. John’s University School of Law. Ian is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey. 

Noriel L. Sta. Maria, M.D., Casualty Department
Noriel concentrates his practice in the areas of asbestos and toxic tort litigation. As both a physician and an attorney, he leverages his deep medical expertise to strengthen legal defenses, offering a distinct advantage in cases where medicine plays a critical role. Noriel is a graduate of the SUNY Downstate College of Medicine and obtained his juris doctor from Fordham University School of Law. He is admitted to practice in New York. 

2026 Shareholder Class

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

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

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

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. 

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.