.

Jason is a highly accomplished defense attorney with more than 20 years of experience handling complex casualty litigation. 

Throughout his career, Jason has defended hundreds of premises liability, sports and entertainment, retail, dram shop, motor vehicle and product liability matters, trying several cases to verdict. Additionally, he has handled several mold exposure claims involving subcontractors, school districts and a regional hospital. 

He has also represented Fortune 500 companies and a considerable number of service providers in sports and entertainment, retail, corrections, healthcare, facilities, restaurant and bar industries. 

In addition to his seasoned trial advocacy skills, he regularly uses focused discovery and technology to effectively and creatively represent his clients in a cost-efficient manner.  He was also involved in the MDL litigation for a distributor of latex products. Jason regularly serves as a court-appointed arbitrator in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County and United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He also serves as a judge pro tem in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Civil litigants often hire Jason to serve as a private arbitrator in their matters.  

Among his numerous professional affiliations, Jason is the Past President and Board Member of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute (PDI), a 400-member organization comprised of lawyers, insurance company executives, self-insurers, and independent adjusters who are focused on promoting the interests of the civil litigation defense bar. In July 2020 he received the PDI's "Defense Attorney of the Year" Award for his statewide efforts in conjunction with the plaintiff’s bar to reopen Pennsylvania courts and law offices during the Covid-19 pandemic. He also has received the Defense Research Institute’s Exceptional Performance Citation for 2019-2020. He has participated extensively as a panelist or moderator for various Continuing Legal Education programs. He most recently presented to the Northampton County Bar Association on the topic of Representing Your Client at an Online/Virtual Mediation.  

Jason was also an appointed member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Covid-19 Task Force. As one of the civil defense bar representatives, he helped developed processes, technologies and rules recommendations to enable the legal system to continue operations under crisis conditions. 

He now serves on the DRI Center for Law and Public Policy task force dedicated to monitoring legislative and rulemaking developments at the state level. 

Devoted to community service, Jason is President of Lower Saucon Township Council. His community service on Township Council includes liaison to Landfill, Parks & Recreation, Municipal Police Contract and Active Transportation Committees. He formerly served for ten years as the Chairman of the Lower Saucon Township Zoning Hearing Board, deciding substantive and procedural challenges to the validity of land use ordinances.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 1999)
    • Bucknell University (B.S.B.A., 1994)
    • New Jersey, 2000
    • Pennsylvania, 2000
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2000
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 2000
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2000
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2000
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 2018
    • Supreme Court of the United States, 2023
    • Obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a civil jury trial in Northampton County, Pa. under COVID restrictions. In this premises liability case, the plaintiff claimed he had slipped on snow and ice on a sidewalk and suffered a comminuted tri-malleolar fracture, requiring two surgeries. The demand was $130K and Jason’s best offer was $75K. At trial, Jason demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to establish that the accident occurred on the property his client maintained as power-of-attorney and that his client breached any limited duty owed to a licensee. The socially-distanced jury returned its verdict in an hour. 
    • Obtained summary judgment for a hospital operating room management consulting company for premises liability claims resulting in alleged traumatic brain injury where demand was $1.9 million.
    • Obtained defense verdict for a bowling alley for premises liability claims resulting in alleged brachial plexus injury where demand was $250,000.
    • Obtained a summary judgment in a Monroe County apartment complex slip and fall on snow and ice case.  The Court determined that the evidence adduced by plaintiff did not meet the requirements for the Hills and Ridges Doctrine (i.e. that snow and ice had accumulated on the ground in ridges or elevations of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel and constitute a danger to pedestrians). The Court also found that there was no proof of a dangerous condition or notice of the condition to establish a breach of duty.  The Court did not reach the merits of our assumption of risk arguments.
    • Obtained summary judgment for a correctional services food services provider for toxic tort claims of correctional officers alleging exposure to mold in the prison where demand was in excess of $1 million.
    • Successfully and economically resolved a complex premises liability case at an air cargo distribution hub through creative use of meteorology experts and discovery.
    • Successfully and economically resolved a complex industrial shelving unit collapse case resulting in catastrophic head injury through creative use of biomechanical and engineering experts.
    • Successfully and economically resolved a medical product liability case involving a catheter sheath through effective use of engineering and design experts.
    • Successfully and economically resolved a products liability case involving a motorized yard truck through effective use of engineering and human factors experts.
    • Obtained summary judgment for a tree removal service based on plaintiff's failure to file action within statute of limitations.
    • Obtained defense verdict at trial in a low speed motor vehicle accident through effective use of photographs, damages estimates and medical experts.
    • Successfully obtained dismissal of the distributor of an allegedly defective log splitter.
    • Successfully defended construction liability case where the demand was $10 million by showing that the action of my client was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries.
    • Board of Governors of Bowie State University’s Maguire Academy for Risk Management and Insurance (2025)
    • Top Lawyers of the Lehigh Valley, Litigation (2025)
    • 2020 Pennsylvania Trailblazer, The Legal Intelligencer
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association (PBA) COVID-19 Task Force
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute (PDI), Defense Attorney of the Year, 2020
    • Defense Resource Institute - Exceptional Performance Citation 2019-2020
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star (2007-2008)
    • American Bar Association
    • Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM)
    • Defense Research Institute
    • Lehigh County Bar Association
    • Lower Saucon Township Zoning Hearing Board
    • Northampton County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute, (PDI) Co-chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee 2021; President 2019; Executive Vice President 2017-2018; Treasurer 2016-2017; Secretary 2015-2016; Board of Directors 2011-Present
    • Temple American Inn of Court, 2000-2001
    • Lower Saucon Township Council, 2019 to present
    • Defense Resource Institute, State Representative for Pennsylvania
    • DRI Center for Law and Public Policy, State Legislation and Rules Task Force
    • Project Litigate – Panel Discussion, 2024 Pennsylvania Defense Institute (PDI) Annual Conference, Bedford Springs, PA, July 12, 2024
    • Civil Litigation State of Affairs, The Impact of COVID-19 in New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida & What’s Next – Moderator, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, June 2021
    • Civil Litigation Updates in COVID-19 Litigation – Where Do We Stand One Year Later? Marshall Dennehey Webinar, May 2021
    • How to Represent Your Client in Virtual Mediation, webinar presented by Northampton County Bar Association, May 21, 2020
    • An Overview of Pennsylvania Law and Effective Litigation Management Strategies, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, June 2015
    • An Overview of Pennsylvania Automobile Liability, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, April 2015
    • Issues and Defenses in Pennsylvania Premises Liability Cases, American National Red Cross' Dedicated Liability Unit, July 2011
    • Pennsylvania Liability Seminar, Crawford & Company
    • Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Liability Seminar, Laidlaw Transit, Inc.
    • Persuasion, Civility and How Jurors Make Decisions, Panelist and moderator, Pennsylvania Defense Institute North Region Ethics CLE Program
    • Advanced General Liability Seminar, organizer and moderator, PDI East with federal and state judges
    • “Social Media: The Discoverable Window to the Trust,” LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, September 21, 2011, and Defense Digest, Vol. 17, No. 3, September 2011

Results

View all

Unanimous Defense Verdict in Premises Liability Civil Jury Trial Under COVID Restrictions

We obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a civil jury trial in Northampton County, Pa. under COVID restrictions. In this premises liability case, the plaintiff claimed he had slipped on snow and ice on a sidewalk and suffered a comminuted tri-malleolar fracture, requiring two surgeries. At trial, Jason demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to establish that the accident occurred on the property his client maintained as power-of-attorney, or that his client breached any limited duty owed to a licensee. The socially-distanced jury returned its verdict in favor of the defense in one hour.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

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.

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Result

Federal Statute Declared Constitutional

In this products liability case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court and upheld the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which resulted in judgment as a matter of law for the defendant manufacturer.

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

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.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

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