.

James P. Hanratty

Portrait of James P. Hanratty

Jim is the managing attorney and Casualty Supervisor for the Jacksonville office.  In this capacity, Jim oversees a team of experienced attorneys handling corporate, commercial and civil litigation matters including workers’ compensation across Northern Florida.

Jim transferred to the Jacksonville office in 2012 after a 23-year career defending manufacturers, hospitals, trucking and transportation carriers, retail establishments and construction professionals throughout Ohio, Western Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Jim is an experienced first-chair trial lawyer and has taken over 150 civil jury trials to verdict since 1989.

In Florida, Jim has put his broad based experience to work by assuming the statewide supervision of matters for key clients in a wide range of cases including products liability, trucking and transportation, commercial premises liability and construction related injuries. Jim continues to handle significant and catastrophic injury cases involving automobile and general liability claims with an emphasis on the defense of brain injury claims. He is also experienced in representing health care professionals in medical malpractice claims. Jim has also expanded his practice to include representing condominium and homeowners associations as well as representing employers in matters involving ADA, FLSA/Wage & Hour, and Title VII before the EEOC and the Florida Commission on Human Relations.

Jim maintains a Martindale-Hubbell rating of AV® Preeminent™, the highest rating for professional competence and was recognized in 2010 as a Super Lawyer. He is board certified in Civil Trial Law by The Florida Bar. Jim is licensed to practice in all state and federal District Courts of Florida.

    • University of Akron School of Law (J.D., 1989)
    • Walsh University (B.A., 1986)
    • Florida, 2012
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2021-2026)
    • Florida Trend's Legal Elite - Civil Trial (2022)
    • Ohio Super Lawyer (2010)
    • International Association of Defense Counsel
    • American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA)
    • American Bar Association
    • Florida Bar Association
    • Jacksonville Bar Association
    • Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers, 1989-1993
    • Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys (Chair, Insurance Relations Committee, 2002-2007; Chair, Trial Tactics Committee, 2009-2012)
    • Ohio State Bar Association
    • Stark County Ohio Bar Association
    • West Virginia Bar Association
    • Top 5 Challenges Relative to Workers' Compensation Claims, Property and Casualty Claims and For Mediators, FCCI Educational Conference, October 2018
    • Defending Catastrophic Injury Claims - How to Stack the Deck in Your Favor, Marshall Dennehey Florida Claims Symposium – Casino Royale, Tampa, FL, September 20, 2018
    • "Courtroom Warriors" Present: Trying Your Case To A Defense Verdict; "Opening Statements; Making A Good First Impression," Cleveland Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, August 2008
    • Use, Selection of Expert Witnesses, Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, 2003
    • Insurance Relations Round Table, Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, 2003
    • Defense of Wrongful Death Case, Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, 2002
    • Law Office Management, University of Akron, 1992, 1995
    • Insurance Seminar, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers, 1992
    • "Reducing Workplace Accident Liability," Wholesale & Distribution International, Winter 2014
    • "Benefits of Involving Counsel When an Accident Occurs," Defense Digest, Vol. 19, No. 2, June 2013
    • "A Defendant's Guide To Approaching Head Injury Cases," Law360.com, February 8, 2013
    • "Benefits of Involving Counsel When an Accident Occurs," Construction Executive, December 2012
    • "Avoiding Headaches in Traumatic Brain Injury Cases," Defense Digest, Vol. 18, No. 4, December 2012
    • "Opening Statements: You Never Have a Second Chance to Make a First Impression," OACTA Quarterly Review, Vol. 2, Issue 4, Winter, 2009-2010
    • "A Momentary Lapse Of Reason In Ohio," Defense Digest, Vol. 14, No. 3, September 2008
    • "Selection, Use, Care and Feeding of Expert Witnesses," OACTA Review, Winter 2002
    • "Discovery In a Slip/Trip and Fall Case," OACTA Quarterly Review, Vol. 33, No. 2, Spring, 1998
    • United States Army Reserve, 1981-1990
    • Obtained summary judgment in a wrongful death and negligent security action involving the off premises murder of an employee. The plaintiff’s decedent was abducted, stabbed, and strangled during her lunch break after leaving the workplace parking lot with a man who had been looking for one of her co workers. We demonstrated that the crime was not foreseeable and that the client owed no duty. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the order granting summary judgment.
    • A defense jury verdict in a tort/underinsured motorist suit directly against an insurance carrier where the plaintiff claimed brain injury and demanded $1.25 million.
    • Resolution of a wrongful death action against a manufacturer of a forklift by establishing that the incident was not caused by a defect in the product.
    • Resolution of a claim during trial of a dentist who, as a result of an auto accident, was left with neurological damage to her right arm. Economic experts claimed her professional loss due to the inability to practice dentistry was in excess of $3.4 million, but the case was settled during trial for approximately 24% of that number, due in large part to the cross examination of plaintiff's expert revealing several inconsistencies.
    • Supervised and coordinated several protective investigations for national construction firm requiring immediate response and scene inspection within hours of incidents to preserve the evidence and coordinate defenses often leading to the prevention of claims.
    • Successfully coordinated investigation and defense of Japanese manufacturer of industrial machinery in an amputation case leading to dismissal of client before trial.
    • Successfully defended National Restaurant Chain in multi-party litigation involving catastrophic injuries by using social media discovery to defeat emotional distress claims due to scarring.
    • Successfully defended a watercraft manufacturer at jury trial in a product liability action involving allegations of brain injury.
    • Obtained a defense jury verdict in a premises case on behalf of a national tax firm arising from a fall with serious injuries including a fractured femur with placement of intramedullary rod.
    • Obtained a defense jury verdict in a product defect/Magnuson-Moss action alleging personal injury due to inhalation of toxic mold and chemicals.
    • Successfully defended recreational vehicle retailer in multiple claims arising from allegations of product defect and "downstream distributor" claims including successful use of dispositive motions.
    • Successfully defended automobile accident case at jury trial involving catastrophic injuries and liability questions involving complex accident reconstruction issues and vehicle dynamics.
    • Successfully defended regional construction firm at jury trial in claim involving allegations of complex medical conditions arising from a low speed impact accident.
    • Board Certified Specialist, Civil Trial Law, The Florida Bar

Results

Summary Judgment Secured in a Contentious Coverage Matter

We were granted summary judgment in a coverage matter. The plaintiff was seeking UM benefits for a policy he had on a car he owned for an accident that occurred when he was operating a motorcycle he owned, but did not insure. The court confirmed that the policy excluded underinsured motorist coverage for the plaintiff’s motorcycle. The issue was that the definition of “motor vehicle” for the other owned motor vehicle exclusion was not specifically provided in the policy. In the PIP coverage, the policy contained an exclusion for motorcycles because the definition said motor vehicles must have four wheels. The plaintiff argued that the same policy said a motorcycle was not a motor vehicle for PIP coverage, but was a motor vehicle for the other owned vehicle exclusion. This was an ambiguity in the policy that should be interpreted against the carrier. The plaintiff had significant injuries that far exceeded the value of the policy. The court upheld both exclusions and followed our argument that the PIP and UM portions of the policy are separate and distinct and that any definition in the PIP coverage did not necessarily apply to the UM coverage. 

Directed Verdict Secured in a High-Exposure Defamation Lawsuit in Florida

We obtained a directed verdict in favor of our client in a high-risk defamation lawsuit. We were called to try the case on behalf of the CEO of a local chapter of a well-known national nonprofit after the plaintiff was permitted to amend the complaint to seek punitive damages from the CEO personally. The plaintiff was a volunteer at a camp. A decision was made to separate him from the camp and the organization. The plaintiff alleged that the CEO personally defamed him by alerting other volunteers and committees of the decision. He demanded an eight-figure sum prior to trial. After a six-day trial and several hours of argument at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the court granted our motion for directed verdict, ruling that the evidence presented confirmed that the communications by the CEO were covered by a qualified privilege and that, based on cross examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses, the defense established that there was no malicious conduct by the CEO. 

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Jacksonville Office Expands and Leads Litigation Practice in Northern Florida

September 1, 2025

In 2024, the Jacksonville, Florida office celebrated our 20th year by moving to beautiful, new office space. We remain a presence in downtown Jacksonville and continue to cement our position as a premier litigation practice in Northern Florida. The Jacksonville office’s territory stretches from the Atlantic Coast to the Gulf Coast, across the northernmost counties of the state and across two time zones. Our lawyers have leveraged technology to allow us to service our clients’ needs in the most efficient way possible. When travel is necessary, we are perfectly situated to reach our expansive practice area quickly and effectively. The Jacksonville office is made up of talented lawyers working in the firm’s four practice departments: Casualty, Health Care, Workers’ Compensation, and Professional Liability. While only about 3% of all Florida lawyers have the distinction of being Board Certified as Specialists by the Florida Bar, almost 30% of our Jacksonville lawyers hold this honor. These highly-qualified lawyers include Elizabeth Ferguson, the leader of our Architectural, Engineering & Construction Defect Litigation Practice Group, Heather Carbone and Blake Hood, who are certified specialists in workers’ compensation practice, and myself, who works in the Casualty Department and has the honor of being certified as a specialist in civil trials. These distinctions and our commitment to our practices demonstrate the quality of counsel available to our clients as well as the excellent mentoring available to our newer lawyers.  Our newer attorneys are routinely named in the various professional journals lists of up-and-coming, talented attorneys. They are well situated to continue the growth of Marshall Dennehey’s presence in Northern Florida. As we continue to expand, we do so with an eye toward maintaining the Marshall Dennehey culture, which demands that we are not just great lawyers for our clients, but good people to each other, our families, and our opposition. Northern Florida continues to experience rapid and sustained growth, and the Jacksonville office is poised to continue to be a leader in the market as we move forward.  Jim is the managing attorney of our Jacksonville, FL office. He can be reached at (904) 358-4208 and JPHanratty@mdwcg.com.    Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 3, September 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Our Jacksonville Office

March 1, 2021

Marshall Dennehey has been an active part of the Jacksonville legal community since 2004. We opened with a few well-known and highly-respected members of the Duval County Bar and have since developed into a vibrant group of attorneys from many walks of life, handling diverse case loads in multiple practice groups. The Jacksonville office is within walking distance of the beautiful Duval County Courthouse, and we can often be found working there. However, we handle litigation far beyond the immediate area, covering an expansive territory across northern Florida, from the Atlantic Coast to the Gulf Coast. One of the founding members of the Jacksonville office is Michael DeCandio. Michael is well known as one of the leading construction defect defense attorneys in the state, regularly representing engineers and architects as well as the trades. Joining Michael in this practice group is Elizabeth Ferguson, a Board Certified Construction Defect attorney who is also recognized as a go-to construction defect lawyer. Elizabeth has a long history of leadership with the bar, and she is a former president of the Jacksonville Bar Association. They are supported by associate Avery Sander, who is active in the Jacksonville Women Lawyers Association, the Florida Association of Women Lawyers and the Chester Bedell Inn of Court. Jacksonville’s newest practice is the Workers’ Compensation Practice Group led by Heather Carbone. Heather and Linda Farrell joined us three years ago as part of the firm’s strategic plan to expand the Workers’ Compensation Department into the state. Heather and Linda provide their clients with unparalleled service through their advocacy, incredible work ethics and professionalism. Kelly Scifres is an associate in the group who is rapidly developing her own client relationships and reputation in the close-knit workers’ compensation bar. Responding to the needs of our clients, in 2019, Corey Setterlund transferred to Jacksonville from our Fort Lauderdale office to provide much needed defense of first-party property cases. Corey is a passionate, dedicated and diligent lawyer for her clients. (Is it any wonder that in her spare time she runs ultra-marathons?) The newest member of the property team is Caitlin Polly, who came over from the dark side (a little defense bar humor) to provide her unique insight and energy to the team. I am fortunate to lead the Casualty Practice Group in Jacksonville. As an attorney with 30+ years of experience and more than 150 verdicts in four states, it is my privilege to watch the attorneys I work with develop and grow their talents to the benefit of our clients. Rob Williams is a Jacksonville native who previously served as in-house counsel for a major casualty insurer. Sean Reeves is a former Army helicopter pilot whose experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan surely contribute to his fearless, warrior spirit in attacking any challenge, no matter how complex. Kathleen Carlson is extremely knowledgeable in the auto defense arena and is relentless in her pursuit of excellent outcomes for her clients while assuring on-time and informative reporting to the carriers. In addition to these primary practice areas, the attorneys in our Jacksonville office also handle employment and health care matters. Whatever your civil litigation needs are, we have the diverse talent, experience, energy, and flexibility to efficiently and effectively handle your litigation throughout north Florida. Please contact me with any questions about your legal needs. We look forward to working with you! *Jim is the managing attorney of our Jacksonville, Florida office. He can be reached at 904.358.4208 or jphanratty@mdwcg.com.   Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 2, March 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Events

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

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.