.

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

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.