.

Jeffrey J. Chomko

Shareholder

JJChomko@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Jeffrey J. Chomko

As a shareholder in the firm's Professional Liability Department, Jeffrey concentrates a significant portion of his practice in defending errors and omissions claims directed to insurance agents and brokers, investment professionals, real estate professionals, appraisers and home inspectors in the State and Federal Courts of Pennsylvania. He also represents these professionals before state securities and insurance commissions, real estate commissions, and other regulatory forums, including the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), and Commonwealth Regulatory Agencies.  These matters involve licensure issues, administrative and regulatory litigation, and responding and defending against complaints and inquiries.

Jeffrey also defends funeral industry professionals, including funeral directors and cemeteries. Jeffrey has litigated bench and jury trials involving complex insurance, securities, commercial, real estate and burial disputes. He has represented insurance agents, securities brokers, real estate agents, title agents, home inspectors, banks, condominium boards, property management companies, and other commercial entities.  He also has a strong background defending both general liability and casualty matters from the most basic to the most complex. 

Jeffrey practices in both the state and federal courts of Pennsylvania, regularly representing clients in Pennsylvania State Courts, and the Federal District Court for the Eastern and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania. Jeffrey has entered PRO HAC VICE in multiple lawsuits in other jurisdictions, including Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, Delaware, and Virginia. He has a strong command of state and federal procedural rules and is well versed in the intricacies of local, state, and federal practice. In addition to litigating matters, he often utilizes the mediation and arbitration process to resolve complex disputes, including AAA Arbitration and through private mediators.

Throughout his career, Jeffrey has successfully litigated/handled hundreds of civil matters resulting in many defense verdicts, dismissals, or favorable settlements in both judicial and non-judicial forums. As a former registered representative, his understanding of the workings of the financial services industry and markets, as well as his familiarity with all types of insurance and investment products, has enabled him to efficiently and effectively handle complex insurance and securities disputes. His knowledge of residential and commercial real estate and the burial industry also allows him to successfully litigate these matters.
 
A graduate of Villanova University and Boston College Law School, he frequently presents to clients and industry groups on insurance and real estate related issues. His most recent presentation was "Best Practices for Insurance Agents and Brokers."

    • Boston College Law School (J.D., 1988)
    • Villanova University (B.A., 1984)
    • Pennsylvania, 1988
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2001
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2001
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Insurance Law (2027)
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Successfully defended insurance agent in a Maryland Insurance Department investigation involving a customer complaint concerning the sale of life insurance policies. The complaint alleged the agent oversold life insurance to a couple who claimed the amount of insurance was excessive, unsuitable and unnecessary. Jeffrey was able to demonstrate to the regulators that the agent did a thorough job in explaining the need and purpose for the coverage, and that the couple could afford the coverage, and actually drove the decision to purchase the policies. They only changed their mind later, after the client was criticized by a subsequent insurance agent. Jeffrey also shut down a Certified Financial Planner Board investigation involving the same matter. 
    • Successfully gained dismissal of an action against an insurance agent in Wyoming County Pennsylvania on a matter involving the sale by an agent of a number of mutual funds (IRA retirement funds). In this case, the plaintiff contended the mutual funds were excessive and unsuitable. Jeffrey convinced the trial court judge that plaintiff’s counsel’s lack of activity for several years on the case, and his failure to respond to long-outstanding discovery, warranted a full dismissal of the lawsuit.
    • Defense verdict obtained on behalf of a registered investment advisor and broker-dealer following a four day jury trial in Schuylkill County.  The registered investment advisor and broker dealer were sued by their former client for investment losses.  The Plaintiff was a paraplegic whose wealth was obtained through a jury verdict and settlements related to his injuries.  The case was defended on the basis that the registered investment advisor met the standard of care and did not breach any duties owed to the Plaintiff, as well as the fact that the Plaintiff was net profitable in his investments.  The Plaintiff sought to "cherry pick" losing investments from an overall profitable portfolio.  
    • Represented and obtained dismissal of an insurance agent in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in a matter involving an insurance policy the agent had sold to a professional hockey player. When the player's widow brought a claim for a breach of the standard of care,  Jeffrey successfully argued that no duty was owed or breached.
    • Obtained summary judgment in a binding arbitration on behalf of an insurance agent against a well-known Philadelphia restauranteur in a dispute involving the assessment of a co-insurance penalty. Succesfully argued that the insured's own conduct barred him from obtaining recovery.
    • Obtained summary judgement on behalf of an insurance agent and agency against a lawyer/plaintiff in a case involving the placement of coverage for a residential commercial property in Philadelphia. Successfully argued that no breach of contract claim was manifested.
    • Successfully resolved a condominium dispute involving a resident who sued a condominium board and its individual officers in tort and contract, by establishing that the board acted properly in its management and oversight of the property.
    • Successfully defended claims for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of a non-profit retirement organization by arguing that the entity acted properly in assisting its members in purchasing and residing in a Center City condominium, despite claims by existing residents that the organization's members should not be permitted to live there, due to advanced age. Successfully utilized a Human Relations Commission decision on behalf of the elderly residents to effectively bring an end to the civil litigation.
    • Successfully argued that a policy of life insurance is not bound until the policy of insurance is actually delivered and is paid for by the policyholder.
    • Successfully able to reduce and resolve multi-million dollar settlement demands down to less than a fraction of the damages claimed. In one instance, the demand was for $1.6 million and was resolved for $245,000. In another instance, the demand was for $2.1 million and the case was resolved for $160,000.
    • Through the use of inspection, engineering, or construction experts, was able to resolve for pennies on the dollar cases with high exposure, including extra-contractual damage exposure.
    • Successfully employed the use of appraisers, conduct experts, and cause and origin experts to resolve multiple matters involving potential exposure in excess of $1  million for fractions of that amount.

Results

View all

Defense Award Following Six-Week FINRA Hearing

We obtained a defense award on a six-week FINRA hearing where our client, a General Agent, faced an alleged defamation/conversion/wrongful termination claim. The claimants contended that our client not only wrongfully discharged them after discovering their involvement in a bank-owned life insurance transaction, but also converted their trails and commissions, and defamed them on their U-5 form published through FINRA BrokerCheck. Damages totaling $15 million and punitive damages were sought by the three claimants. While the panel awarded $8 million in damages against the firm they were affiliated with, we obtained a defense award on all counts and dismissal of all claims for punitive damages on behalf of our General Agent client.

Investigation Against Home Appraiser Shut Down by Defense

We successfully defended a home appraiser in a regulatory investigation undertaken by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Bureau of Enforcement relating to the appraisal of a five-acre parcel of property. The complainant contended the valuation arrived at by the appraiser (as part of a divorce proceeding) was artificially low given the fact the parcel was sub-dividable. We convinced the investigator that the appraisal number arrived at was in line with comparable properties in the area, particularly given some of the ingress issues involved in accessing the property. After an in-person interview of the appraiser and submissions, the investigator elected to shut the investigation down and take no further action against the appraiser. 

Thought Leadership

View all

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Our Real Estate E&O Liability Practice Group

December 1, 2022

Our Real Estate E&O Liability Practice Group has a long history of representing real estate professionals. We have defended real estate brokers and agents, title agents and abstractors, appraisers, surveyors, home inspectors, mortgage companies, property management companies and condominium associations, on all types of claims brought in state and federal court and regulatory forums throughout all jurisdictions in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Florida, Delaware, Ohio and Connecticut. These claims manifest themselves in a variety of ways, with most arising from commercial and residential real estate transactions. They involve disputes surrounding disclosures, financing, valuation, liens, zoning, property management, conditions, construction, and a variety of other items that arise from the property acquisition and transfer process. The claims range from contract to tort, to those raising statutory violations. Many present equitable issues involving easements, deed restrictions and title. Apart from these standard E&O claims, the Group also represents and defends condominium associations and boards in disputes arising with and between unit owners and third parties. These claims may involve property damage, construction, water, fire and mold disputes. They can also include a variety of other issues, including those specific to particular jurisdictions, like mold, sinkholes and storm-related claims. We also handle disputes surrounding the legal interpretation and application of association governance documents, such as declarations and by-laws in declaratory judgment actions. In the regulatory forum, our lawyers regularly defend real estate professionals against customer complaints resulting from the delivery of services. They often implicate violations of state and administrative law concerning the delivery of professional services. We defend real estate agents, appraisers, title agents and a variety of other professionals from these complaints, starting with the customer complaint or initial inquiry received through the administrative hearing process. Our practice group is composed of seasoned, creative and highly regarded lawyers who have litigated many complex disputes. They include shareholders: Jay Rothman, Jeffrey Chomko and Dana Gittleman in Philadelphia; Christopher Conrad in our Harrisburg office; Jonathan Kanov in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Christopher Block in our Roseland, New Jersey, office; and Aaron Moore in our Wilmington, Delaware, office. We also have a team of associates and paralegals who work with them in preparing and defending all aspects of these cases. We pride ourselves on our strong reputation, earned over the last 60 years through the successful defense of the most complex and difficult matters. Our philosophy is simple: to quickly evaluate and strive to efficiently resolve these matters at an early stage, if possible, in order to avoid costly, unpredictable litigation. Nevertheless, if necessary, we are prepared to take to trial those cases that cannot be resolved. We also present seminars and training sessions to clients and insureds that address legal issues that arise in the particular jurisdictions we service. We discuss best practices for real estate agents, home inspectors and other professionals. We welcome you to look at the bios of our attorneys in the group and reach out to us with any questions.   Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

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

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

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

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

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. 

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.

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.