.

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

July 31, 2026

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

Jason Banonis, shareholder in the Casualty Department in our King of Prussia office, was honored with the Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s (PDI) 2026 Attorney of the Year Award at the organization's annual conference on July 30 in Bedford Springs, Pennsylvania. Composed of defense attorneys and insurance industry leaders, PDI is Pennsylvania’s premier defense organization, dedicated to advancing the interests of the civil litigation defense bar and promoting excellence in the practice of law.

“Jason has played a long and outstanding role in PDI, and it is no exaggeration to say that he is one of this organization’s greatest assets,” said PDI President Tricia S. Springer. “For many years, he has dedicated his time, energy, and leadership to advancing PDI’s mission. While his contributions have been many, his work in legislative affairs stands out. As chair of PDI’s Legislative Affairs Committee, he has helped keep our members informed and ensured that PDI remains an effective voice on issues affecting the defense bar. His commitment has made a lasting impact on both the organization and the profession.”

Banonis joined Marshall Dennehey in 2002, primarily focusing on casualty litigation. He has handled the defense of hundreds of premises liability, retail and motor vehicle matters, trying several cases to verdict. He represents many 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 PDI, Banonis is active in the Defense Research Institute (DRI), where he serves as the State Representative for Pennsylvania and on the State Legislation and Rules Task Force.

A graduate of Bucknell University and Widener University School of Law, Banonis is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Recreational Immunity for County Under Landowners' Liability Act

In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc. v. Middlesex County Parks Department, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of Middlesex County Parks Department, holding that the county was immune from liability under New Jersey's Landowners' Liability Act (LLA), notwithstanding its failure to plead the immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Complaint. The case arose from injuries sustained by fourteen-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Kuzma, while playing basketball at Spring Lake Park in South Plainfield on August 23, 2019. The plaintiff observed a crack in the basketball court before beginning to play but did not consider it dangerous. During the game, his foot became caught in the crack, causing him to fall and suffer a significant ankle injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted in ongoing physical limitations and deprived him of the opportunity to play collegiate basketball. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendants negligently maintained the basketball court. Although the county did not assert LLA immunity as an affirmative defense in its answers, it later moved for summary judgment on that basis. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the county had waived the defense by failing to plead it. The county maintained that the plaintiff had received sufficient notice of its intent to rely on the LLA through discovery and therefore suffered no unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, concluding that the county should be permitted to invoke statutory immunity notwithstanding its failure to formally plead the defense. Relying heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court's guidance in Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen, holding a county park was subject to the immunity of the LLA, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the county's failure to plead LLA immunity did not preclude reliance on the defense under the circumstances presented. The court determined that the plaintiff had received adequate notice of the immunity claim through discovery and that permitting the defense furthered the public-policy objectives embodied in the LLA. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's injury and the general societal interest in maintaining parks and recreational facilities in a safe condition. However, the court emphasized that both the legislature and the New Jersey Supreme Court have expressed a clear policy choice to limit liability for public and private landowners who make recreational property available for public use. The decision reinforces the courts' continuing adherence to the Landowners' Liability Act and the principle that recreational lands and facilities should be broadly protected from liability exposure, even in cases involving significant personal injuries.