.

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 (2021-2027)
    • 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

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees Due to Lack of Evidence to Support Fee Awarded

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding appellate fees to People’s Trust Insurance Company based upon a lack of evidence to support the attorney’s fee award in RM & Assocs. Consulting, Inc. v. People's Trust Ins. Co., 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 4654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). People’s Trust was the insurer of a residential property that had sustained water damage. RM & Associates Consulting was hired by the homeowner to perform mitigation services at the property. The homeowner assigned post-loss benefits to RM and RM subsequently filed suit against People’s Trust alleging that it had not been paid the money it was owed for the mitigation services. People’s Trust defended the lawsuit on the ground that the policy required the insured to notify the insurer before authorizing repairs so People's Trust could elect to use its preferred contractor. Because the owner did not comply with that provision, People's Trust asserted its liability was limited to the amount that its preferred contractor would have charged for the work, which People's Trust contended was $2,000. People's Trust paid that amount to RM before RM filed suit. People’s Trust filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. RM appealed the summary judgment ruling and the ruling was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate court also granted People’s Trust’s entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, subject to the trial court’s determination of the amount of fees, based upon an offer of judgment made by People's Trust. On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees People’s Trust was entitled to. At the hearing, People’s Trust presented testimony from it’s fee expert, supervising trial counsel and appellate counsel. People’s Trust sought recovery of $24,866.17 for work performed by appellate counsel. The request primarily consisted of work performed in preparation of the answer brief. The fee expert testified that more than ninety hours spent preparing the answer brief was reasonable given the complexity and significance of the underlying issue. The appellate court found that the fee expert’s testimony fell short of meeting the necessary standard of demonstrating that the hours expended were necessary. The appellate court found that the billing records did not serve to cure the deficient testimony, as the billing records did not contain adequate details regarding the specific tasks performed. Rather the records contained entries such as “answer brief” which the appellate court found to be insufficient. The appellate court noted that neither the fee expert or counsel addressed how the prior research and briefing in the parallel litigation informed the work in the instant matter. The appellate court noted this was significant in that a court's attorney's fees award must exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, citing Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based upon the record failing to support the finding of the trial court, the 4th DCA remanded the case to the trial court for a reconsideration and redetermination of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees supported by competent substantial evidence. The 4th DCA reiterated that the fee expert’s focus on the quality of the work and the importance of the work to People’s Trust did not make up for the perceived deficiencies in the position that spending over ninety hours on a single answer brief was reasonable. Whether moving for attorney’s fees or challenging the amount of fees being sought by an opposing party, practitioners should be mindful of the evidence being used to support the claims being made. Parties should pay close attention to whether the hours being sought may be impacted by prior litigation either party may have engaged in. A party must be prepared to address how prior litigation efforts did or did not impact the amount of hours being claimed in current litigation. Lastly, billing records must be sufficiently detailed so as to support any potential future fee claim.

Thought Leadership

United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida finds Evidence of Replacement Cost Value is Admissible and Recoverable Even When Repairs Have Not Been Made

The plaintiff filed a claim for damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. It claimed damages were over $24 million, but the carrier accepted partial coverage and paid $8,307.49 for secondary components. The carrier found hurricane damage to the building, but it was below the insurance policy’s $3.6 million deductible. The plaintiff sued for breach of the insurance policy. The carrier argued in a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff could not recover replacement cost value (RCV) because the property repairs had not been effectuated. The policy provided for RCV, but only after the repairs were completed. The carrier argued that because the repairs were not completed, the plaintiff was not entitled to RCV damages. The plaintiff argued the carrier could not withhold the actual cost value (ACV) due, which was the main allegation of the lawsuit, then fault it for not making the repairs to unlock the RCV. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected the carrier’s argument, finding that when an insurer allegedly breached the policy by withholding coverage, it could not hide behind a repair-contingent provision to block the insured from RCV damages at trial. The court found the issue to be whether the contractual language designed to preclude certain coverage until after repairs are completed barred an insured from seeking those damages at trial when repairs were not complete. The court noted the Eleventh Circuit had not resolved this issue and neither side pointed to a definitive answer from the Florida Supreme Court. The court reasoned that it must look to the Sixth District Court of Appeal (6th DCA), which is the court which would have heard this case if it was in state court. The court noted the 6th DCA recently addressed this issue in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 427 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026). The Rodriguez Court found that a breach of contract action is designed to adjudicate not only whether the contract was breached, but also evaluate the damages incurred had the breach not occurred, which the Rodriguez court found to be recovery of the RCV. This court also noted basic Florida contract principles compelled the same result, as a material breach frees the nonbreaching party to suspend its own performance and can demand the full benefit of its bargain, including RCV damages. Finally, the court found the distinction between a full denial and partial denial did not compel a different result. It found the policy required the carrier to acknowledge coverage and pay ACV for all covered damages, and the failure to do that is a material breach, entitling the insured to all of the damages available under the contract, which included the RCV.

Thought Leadership

First DCA Reverses Excessive Jury Award Unsupported by the Evidence

In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a claim with Universal for damages caused by a water and sewage back up through the plumbing system and existing through multiple fixtures including the washing machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub and toilet. Universal investigated the claim, issued payment for resulting water damage totaling $7,000.00 in actual cash value ($12,000.00 in replacement cost value). The plaintiffs sought additional benefits for work needed to access the below-slab cast iron plumbing system due to the failure of the system from rust, deterioration, corrosion and breaks in the line. Universal denied any additional benefits for access. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed suit. During litigation, Universal sent a plumber to inspect the home and the plumber concluded the pipes were clogged but could be cleaned. The plaintiffs’ plumber testified that the plumbing system needed to be replaced due to holes and openings in the pipes. The plaintiffs introduced two estimates prepared by Triad Restoration services totaling $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value and an executed contract with another company for repairs with the amounts of repair redacted. Since the insurance policy did not provide coverage for repair or replacement of the plumbing system, the jury only had to decide whether the plumbing system needed to be replaced, and if it did, Universal would owe for the access costs; the jury verdict form required the jury to determine both the replacement cost value and actual cash value amounts. The jury asked if it had to rely on the Triad estimates for their amounts. The trial court advised the amount awarded had to be based on the evidence presented at trial and the law given by the trial court. The jury awarded $335,000.00 in replacement cost value or $305,000.00 in actual cash value. Universal motioned for a new trial arguing the amount awarded was unsupported by the evidence and then moved for remittitur. The trial court denied both motions and this appeal followed. The court found that while a jury’s verdict should only be disturbed with caution and discretion, the trial court must give the properly challenged award close scrutiny and determine whether it bears a reasonable relation to the damaged provided, is supported by the evidence, and could have been reached in a logical manner by reasonable means §768.74(3), (5)(d)-(e), Fla. Stat. The court found the trial court did consider the statutory requirements at the hearing on Universal’s remittitur motion and was concerned about a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and injury suffered and whether the award was supported by the evidence, but ultimately denied the motion, reasoning that the jury had been properly instructed to fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs. The court noted the only evidence providing the basis for the jury verdict was Triad’s estimates and those valued the plaintiffs' claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value; no valuation evidence reasonably supported the jury verdict. The plaintiffs argued that the jury was entitled to consider more than the estimates, but the court conveyed the evidence provided did not give the jury a way to reach the amounts they awarded. The court was also not swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument regarding inflation and later price increases, but the court noted that no evidence via the contract, nor testimony regarding increase in labor, material, fuel or construction costs were entered into the record.  The court concluded the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but it may not supply a damages number by speculation. The court did not find any of the plaintiffs’ remaining argument persuasive either. The court reversed the denial of Universal’s remittitur motion and motion for new trial as to damaged and remanded the case. The court ended its opinion with advising the trial court must determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the property measure of damages under the policy and order remittitur in an amount consistent with that determination and the evidence.