.

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

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Exclusion of Legal Malpractice Expert as Impermissible Net Opinion

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias obtained a favorable decision on behalf of their client in a case centering on the admissibility of expert testimony in legal malpractice actions. In Martin v. Loury, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the exclusion of a plaintiff's legal malpractice expert, holding that the expert's opinions on causation and damages were too speculative to support the malpractice claim. The legal malpractice action arose from an underlying employment dispute involving claims for damages stemming from the breach of an employment agreement. The plaintiff alleged that defense counsel committed malpractice during a second trial by failing to recall the plaintiff as a rebuttal witness after the employer's CEO testified. According to the plaintiff's expert, additional rebuttal testimony would have bolstered the plaintiff's damages claims and led to a more favorable result. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division rejected that theory. The courts found that the expert could not explain how the proposed rebuttal testimony would have altered the outcome of the underlying case or resulted in any additional recoverable damages. Notably, the trial judge in the underlying employment matter had already rejected the CEO's testimony as not credible and had accepted the damages analysis advanced by the plaintiff. The court had also determined that the amount of damages was not genuinely disputed. As a result, the expert's opinion that additional rebuttal testimony would have produced a better outcome was unsupported by the record and based on speculation rather than evidence. The Appellate Division agreed that neither the plaintiff nor the expert could identify any actual damages attributable to the alleged malpractice or demonstrate the required element of proximate causation. The court further upheld the trial court's application of New Jersey's net opinion doctrine, finding that the expert failed to provide the necessary "why and wherefore" supporting his conclusion that the attorney's conduct caused a compensable loss. Because the opinions rested on unquantified possibilities rather than demonstrable facts, they were inadmissible. Key Takeaway for Legal Malpractice Defendants For attorneys and firms defending legal malpractice claims, Martin v. Loury underscores the importance of closely scrutinizing an opponent's expert report on the critical elements of proximate causation and damages. The decision demonstrates that a malpractice claim cannot survive where an expert merely speculates that different litigation tactics might have produced a better result. Instead, the plaintiff must present admissible expert testimony grounded in the record that explains how the alleged attorney error probably changed the outcome of the underlying matter and resulted in measurable damages.

Thought Leadership

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Holds That Public Policy Does Not Prevent Insurance Coverage for Sex Trafficking Claims

On July 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an opinion emphasizing the limited circumstances in which courts may invoke public policy to bar insurance coverage, holding in Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (U.S. Branch) v. RI Settlement Trust that Pennsylvania public policy does not preclude coverage for claims alleging that insureds enabled or profited from human sex trafficking. The decision rejects a line of federal district court decisions predicting otherwise and reinforces that Pennsylvania courts will invoke the public policy doctrine only in the clearest of circumstances. RI Settlement is particularly significant because it arose on certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, giving the Supreme Court the opportunity to resolve an issue on which federal courts had predicted Pennsylvania law differently. RI Settlement arose out of four separate civil complaints in which the underlying plaintiffs alleged that, as minors, they were the victims of human sex trafficking at various hotels in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs claimed that the hotel owners were negligent in failing to stop the sex trafficking from happening at their hotels. After the filing of the lawsuits, the hotel owners sought coverage under their Commercial General Liability policies. The insurers initially defended the hotels under Reservation of Rights letters, though the carriers later filed Declaratory Judgment actions seeking declarations that they did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify. In short, the insurers argued in the alternative that they did not owe any obligation to provide coverage based upon Pennsylvania public policy (because the claims violated the Human Trafficking Law – 18 Pa.C.S. § 3011) and the terms and conditions of the policy. On motions for judgment on the pleadings, the District Court found for the insurers on the basis of public policy: There is no duty to defend or indemnify against actions arising out of an insured's criminal conduct related to the sex trafficking of minors. The Court appreciates that it may make public policy the basis of a judicial decision only in “the clearest of cases.” See Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 589 A.2d 854, 868 (Pa. 2004) (quoting Hall v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 648 A.2d 755, 760 (Pa. 1994)). Yet, the Court strains to imagine a clearer case than the one presented here in which the facts alleged indicate that Policyholders engaged in criminal conduct in violation of Pennsylvania's Human Trafficking Law. The hotel owners appealed the matter to the Third Circuit, which petitioned the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to grant review of two certified questions of law: (1) whether Pennsylvania law had an “overriding public policy” against sex trafficking, such that an insurer’s duty to defend and/or indemnify is abrogated when an insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from such trafficking; and (2) if yes, is that duty abrogated whenever the insured’s alleged conduct would constitute a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Trafficking statute. Importantly, the certified questions did not ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the policies afforded coverage under their terms. Rather, the court was asked only whether Pennsylvania public policy independently barred coverage. As a result, the court assumed for purposes of answering the certified questions that the insurers otherwise owed a duty to defend and addressed only the public policy issue, leaving all policy-based coverage defenses for further proceedings. Because the court concluded that the answer to the first certified question was “no”, it did not reach the second issue. In reaching its determination that Pennsylvania public policy does not prohibit insurance coverage for sex trafficking claims, the court limited the impact of its decision in Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 855 A. 2d 854, 855 (Pa. 2004), which the RI Settlement opinion emphasized as having been an “Opinion Announcing Judgment of the Court” – or a plurality opinion. In Greenfield, the insured homeowner was sued by the estate of his houseguest who overdosed from heroin that he sold to her. The matter wound its way to the Supreme Court, which determined that the insurer did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify based upon Pennsylvania public policy, which criminalized the sale and use of heroin as a Schedule I narcotic. In RI Settlement, the court “decline[d] the invitation” to extend the rationale of the three-justice plurality in Greenfield beyond cases involving Schedule I controlled substances. In so holding, the justices in RI Settlement refused to “divine an overriding public policy pronouncement by the General Assembly by virtue of its enactment of the Human Trafficking Law.” The opinion further states that it is not “within the purview of this Court to rank the magnitude of the public policy underlying the various crimes defined in the Crimes Code. It is sufficient for the work of the courts to know that the General Assembly has identified conduct it deems harmful and dangerous to the maintenance of an orderly society and criminalized it.” While the court declined to declare that Pennsylvania public policy prohibits coverage for sex trafficking claims, the opinion in RI Settlement expressly states that insurers are free to include appropriate exclusionary language for such causes of actions in their policies if they desire to do so. It will certainly be interesting to see whether the insurance industry accepts the court’s invitation, or perhaps whether the Pennsylvania legislature steps in to clarify that sex trafficking claims are indeed of the type or magnitude that they should not be covered by insurance. In any event, we will, of course, continue to monitor this and other insurance coverage issues that arise before courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and throughout our firm’s geographic footprint and around the country.

Thought Leadership

Court Allows Recklessness and Punitive Damages Claims to Proceed After Work‑Zone Crash

In a case where a defendant filed preliminary objections against allegations of recklessness and punitive damages, the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas denied these preliminary objections. This case stems from a motor vehicle accident, where the defendants car struck the plaintiffs car after the defendant allegedly fell asleep at the wheel, going at a high rate of speed, through a construction work zone. Defendant first objected to the general allegations throughout the plaintiff’s complaint pertaining to “reckless” conduct contending that there were insufficient factual allegations to support the claim of reckless conduct. Defendant next objected to the plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, as punitive damages may only be assessed against a motorist for falling asleep while driving if there is further evidence to prove driver was aware of their drowsiness and risk of falling asleep. Lastly, defendant objected to plaintiffs complaint, claiming it lacked specificity. The court here found that the plaintiff had included in the complaint specific allegations related to the defendant’s alleged recklessness, including allegations regarding speeding in a work zone, almost striking the flagger, falling asleep at the wheel, and striking the plaintiffs vehicle which was stopped. Additionally, the court noted that falling asleep does not come without warning. The court found that these allegations were sufficient to support an allegation of recklessness at the pleadings stage.

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.