.

Jeffrey G. Rapattoni

Assistant Director, Casualty Department

Chair, Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Litigation Practice

Co-Chair, Fraud/Special Investigation Practice

Shareholder

Portrait of Jeffrey G. Rapattoni

Jeffrey is the Assistant Director of the Casualty Department and with the Director, is responsible for administrative oversight of more than 250 lawyers among 19 offices. Jeffrey is also a past member of the firm's Board of Directors, having served the maximum two term limit. 

Jeffrey joined Marshall Dennehey in 2008 and serves as the chair of the firm’s PIP Litigation Practice, co-chair of the firm's Fraud/Special Investigation Practice Group. He focuses his practice on insurance fraud, bad faith and SIU related matters working with carriers both in the US and internationally.

For over 20 years Jeffrey has litigated insurance fraud and fraud-related matters on a national level. He acts as coordinating counsel to several insurance companies and helps clients develop strategies for defending complex litigation related to medical provider fraud, PIP and other emerging insurance issues. In addition, Jeffrey frequently consults with insurance carriers across the country to help integrate internal analytical platforms, create risk management protocol and conduct fraud-related investigations.

He has extensive training and background in provider-based investigations, underwriting fraud, policy voidance, and staged accidents. Other practice areas include large loss property claims, coverage, general civil litigation, and appellate practice. He is an experienced mediator and coordinates investigations for companies in the healthcare, insurance, gaming, hospitality and other industries. As part of his practice, Jeffrey has worked with experts in the fields of cause and origin and bad faith as well as local and federal authorities.

Jeffrey serves as Counsel to the Board of Directors of the International Association of Special Investigation Units (IASIU), the largest global organization devoted to fighting insurance fraud by connecting the insurance, investigatory and legal communities. He also is a member of the Advisory Board of the BigData@Rutgers certificate program, where he provides input on curriculum development to improve the program's offerings and value to the business community.

He frequently lectures on insurance fraud, bad faith and data analytics topics for a number of local and national insurance organizations. He also provides legal education seminars for clients and organizations across the country.

After graduating with a Bachelor of Arts degree from Villanova University in 1997, Jeffrey served as a legislative correspondent for United States Senator Arlen Specter in Philadelphia and Washington D.C., where he assisted in drafting legislation and conducting legal investigations. While attending Rutgers Law School, he served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Judge John A. Almeida, J.S.C. Burlington County-Civil Division, where he drafted tentative dispositions of the court and assisted in court-ordered mediation sessions. 

    • Rutgers Law School (J.D., 2001)
    • Villanova University (B.A., 1997)
    • New Jersey, 2002
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 2002
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2004
    • Michigan, 2016
    • Pennsylvania, 2026
    • Counsel, International Association of Special Investigation Units (IASIU) (2025)
    • Ohio Chapter of International Association of Special Investigators (IASIU) Service Award (2020)
    • New Jersey Special Investigators Association (NJSIA) President's Award (2018)
    • Advisory Board Member, BigData@Rutgers Certificate Program (2017)
    • National Insurance Crime Bureau, Certificate of Appreciation (2010)
    • New Jersey Special Investigators Association President's Award (2009)
    • Counsel, Ohio Chapter of International Association of Special Investigators (IASIU)
    • Burlington County Bar Association
    • Camden County Bar Association
    • Claims and Litigation Management Alliance, Board Member and Secretary, South Jersey Chapter
    • Claims and Litigation Management Alliance, Insurance Fraud Committee Member
    • International Association of Special Investigators (IASIU)
    • National Society of Professional Insurance Investigators (NSPII)
    • New Jersey Insurance Defense Committee
    • New Jersey Special Investigators Association (NJSIA)
    • New Jersey State Bar Association
    • South Jersey Claims Association
    • Legal Affairs Committee of the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, Member
    • The Lawyers Club of Philadelphia
    • "Crash & Con: Navigating Staged Accident Fraud," AM Best Insurance Law Podcast, May 22, 2025
    • Getting Caught With Your Hand in the Proverbial Cookie Jar, ClaimsXchange Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA, October 12, 2023
    • Top Cases Impacting Fraud Fighting, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, June 28, 2023
    • The CAT's Out of the Bag: Insurance Fraud in Catastrophic Losses, CLM Annual Conference, Palm Desert, CA, March 24, 2022
    • PI’s in the Field – Pre, During & Post COVID & New Manned/Unmanned Surveillance, Illinois Chapter of IASIU, March 18, 2022
    • Charting the Course of Telehealth in the Post-COVID Landscape, ASHRM Webinar Series, April 27, 2021
    • Rising Risk and Economic Hardship: Insights on Fighting Fraud in Uncertain Times, CLM Webinar, November 5, 2020
    • Fraud Leadership Series: P&C Claims During Covid 19, FRISS Webinar, November 3, 2020
    • The Civil and Criminal State of the SIU in 2020, The Ohio Chapter of IASIU, October 27, 2020
    • All Hands Meeting- The Criminal State of the SIU in 2020, OIFP | NICB Webinar, October 7, 2020
    • National Perspective, Local Impact; New Case Law Impacting the SIU IASIU Webinar, September 14, 2020
    • SIU Litigation Trends Panel Discussion, IFM Webinar, May 12, 2020
    • CLM COVID-19 Webinar Series: "Stop the Spread...Don't Let COVID-19 Infect You With Insurance Fraud," April 23, 2020
    • Medical Investigator's Guide to the Modern SIU Claim, Speaker, New Jersey Special Investigators Association (NJSIA) Annual Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, October 2019
    • How the Market is Falling Short on CAT Claims, CLM Southeast Conference, Orlando FL, October 2019
    • How to Use Data in Your Advantage – Speaker, FRAUDTalks Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, September 24, 2019
    • Secrets to Maintaining a Successful Major Case Unit , IASIU, Phoenix, AZ, September 2019
    • Clamping Down On Fraud – Panelist, Casualty Actuarial Society Spring Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, May, 2019
    • SIU’s Management of Brand Protection – Concerns and Consequences, IFM, Coronado, CA, March 2019
    • Major Case From A-Z, IASIU 2018 Seminar & Expo on Insurance Fraud, Baltimore, MD, September, 2018
    • Major Case From A-Z, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud 360 Seminar, Lafayette Hill, PA, June, 2018
    • The Evolving Partnership of Data Analytics and Claims, A.M. Best Webinar, May 3, 2018 (registration is required but no cost to view webinar)
    • How Smart Data is Remaking Insurance Claims, A.M. Best Webinar, February 22, 2018 (registration is required but no cost to view webinar)
    • Strategic SIU Management and Risk Avoidance – Moderator, 2017 Insurance Fraud Management Conference, Phoenix, AZ, March, 2017
    • Insurance Fraud - Staged Accidents: The New Frontier - panel, 2017 CLM Southeast Conference, Atlanta, GA, November, 2017
    • Trends and the Future State of SIU – Moderator, 27th Annual NJSIA Anti-Fraud Insurance Training Seminar, Atlantic City, NJ, October, 2017
    • Major Case From A-Z, IASIU 2017 Seminar & Expo on Insurance Fraud, New Orleans, LA, September, 2017
    • Ethics Roundtable, HB Litigation Northeast Corporate Counsel Forum, Atlantic City, NJ April, 2017
    • SIU Management Panel, New Jersey Special Investigators Association (NJSIA) Annual Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, October 2016
    • Deposing the Adjuster; Social Media and Big Data, IASIU Annual Seminar and Expo on Insurance Fraud, Red Rock, Nevada, September 2016
    • Managing the Risk in SIU Investigations, Panel Moderator, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud 360 Seminar, Lafayette Hill, PA, June, 2016
    • Risk Management in SIU,  IFM/ISO- Insurance Fraud Management Conference, Savannah, Georgia, March 2016
    • NAMIC Webinar: Contemporary Solutions to Provider and Claimant Medical Fraud, October 27, 2015
    • NAMIC Webinar: Provider Fraud Investigations in Personal Injury Protection Claims, October 13, 2015
    • NAMIC Webinar: Medical Provider Fraud in Uninsured Motorist/Bodily Injury Claims, October 6, 2015
    • Building a Better Medical Major Case, New Jersey Special Investigators Association (NJSIA) Annual Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, October 2015
    • SIU Data Analytics: A Sword and Shield for Florida Law, Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC) 23rd Annual Conference, June 11, 2015
    • Avoiding Risk in Managing the Anti-Fraud Function and Tracking the Value-Add of SIU, 2015 Insurance Fraud Management Conference, Coronado, California, March , 2015.
    • Dissecting The Staged Loss Claim, Speaker, New Jersey Special Investigators Association (NJSIA) Annual Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, October 2014
    • "The Burden of Medical Provider Fraud on the Insurance Industry," A.M. Best PODCAST, September 2014
    • SIU Management Panel - Contemporary SIU Issues, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud 360 Seminar, Lafayette Hill, PA, June 2014
    • Managing and Investigating Billing Misrepresentations Under the New PIP Statute, Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC) 22nd Annual Conference, June 12, 2014.
    • Effectively Managing Contemporary Insurance Fraud Issues, National Society of Professional Insurance Investigators’ 2013 Advanced Insurance Fraud Seminar, St. Louis, MO, November, 2013
    • Effectively Managing Major Case Investigations of Fraudulent Medical Providers, Speaker, New Jersey Special Investigators Association (NJSIA) Annual Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, October 2013
    • Trending Contemporary Medical Fraud, IASIU's 28th Annual Seminar and Expo on Insurance Fraud, Atlanta, GA, September 2013
    • Contemporary Medical Fraud Issues, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud Perspectives Seminar, Cleveland, OH, November 2012
    • Effectively Managing Complex and Emerging Issues, NJSIA 22nd Annual Fraud Seminar, Atlantic City, NJ, October 2012
    • Discussions of Recent Florida Case Law Developments Regarding EUO Methodology and Limitations, FIFEC - Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee, Orlando, FL, June 2012
    • Effectively Managing Contemporary Provider Fraud Issues, Marshall Dennehey Fraud Seminar - Insurance Fraud Perspectives, Lafayette Hill, PA, June 2012
    • Proper Interaction and the Role of the Public Adjuster During an Arson Investigation, ICAC - National Arson Training Seminar, Las Vegas, NV, February, 2012
    • Managing Public Adjuster Issues, IFM - Insurance Fraud Management Conference, Phoenix, AZ, March, 2012
    • NJSIA – Anti-Fraud Training Seminar, Acupuncture Fraud and Abuse, October 2011
    • 2010 NJSIA Auto Theft Investigations; Hail Fraud Claims; Public Adjuster and Homeowner's Fraud, Presenter 
    • 2010 IASIU Property Loss Fraud, Presenter 
    • National Insurance Crime Bureau - 2010 - Hail Storm and Large LossProperty Claims
    • Multi-State Auto Theft Investigation Review, 2010 - Combating Insurance Fraud Seminar, Conshohocken, PA 
    • 2010 IFM General Convention, Point of Sale Fraud, Co-Presenter 
    • 2010 IAA & ACFE Fraud Convention, Insurance Fraud, Presenter 
    • 2009 NJSIA SIU Investigations of the Future, Presenter 
    • 2009 NSPII Medical Provider Fraud, Presenter 
    • 2009 IASIU Public Adjuster Fraud, Presenter
    • 2008 IASIU Medical Provider Fraud, Presenter 
    • 2008 NJSIA Preferred SIU Strategies, Presenter 
    • 2008 NSPII Point of Sale and Underwriting Fraud, Presenter 
    • 2007 NJSIA Innocent Third Party Seminar, Presenter 
    • 2006 NJSIA Policy Voidance Seminar, Presenter 
    • 2005 NJSIA Public Adjuster Fraud Seminar, Co-Presenter 
    • 2004 NJSIA Underwriting Fraud Seminar, Co-Presenter 
    • Defeated a bad faith action where plaintiffs sought treble and punitive damages based upon coverage denials.
    • Secured a voluntary dismissal regarding a $750,000 fraudulently submitted homeowner's claim.
    • Secured a voluntary dismissal with respect to a $375,000 homeowners/bad faith matter in which the insured submitted a fraudulent contents inventory.
    • Through the use of medical and forensic accounting experts, Jeffrey has also been successful in collecting on behalf of insurance carrier clients large sums of money improperly paid to fraudulent medical providers.

Thought Leadership

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

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.

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.

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.