.

Jeffrey G. Rapattoni

Assistant Director, Casualty Department

Chair, Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Litigation Practice

Co-Chair, Fraud/Special Investigation Practice

Shareholder

JGRapattoni@mdwcg.com

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

View all

Staged Accidents, Real Consequences: Combating Crash-for-Cash Schemes in Commercial Auto

November 24, 2025

Insurance fraud is an evolving challenge, but few schemes are as bold, and as costly, as staged automobile accidents. Commonly referred to as “crash-for-cash” incidents, these orchestrated collisions are designed to manipulate the claims process, drive up indemnity payments, and inflate premiums across the industry. What makes them particularly insidious is that they exploit one of the foundational principles of insurance: the expectation that claims arise from sudden and accidental loss. Instead, staged accidents are deliberate, fraudulent events carried out for financial gain.

Spotting Staged Accidents Is Key in Fighting Insurance Fraud

July 1, 2025

Staged accidents—accidents that are intentionally carried out for fraudulent purposes—have increased aggressively since the COVID-19 pandemic and are having a profound impact on commercial lines. Initially misidentifying these types of claims in the early stages can lead to premium increases to the point of losing profitability or becoming uninsurable.

News

View all

Events

View all

Speaking Engagement

2026 Pennsylvania Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (PAMIC) Claims Summit

April 8, 2026

Jeffrey G. Rapattoni, James H. Cole, and Allison L. Krupp

Firm Highlights

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.

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

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.

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.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

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

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

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.

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. 

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed.