.

Jennifer M. Meyers

Shareholder

JMMeyers@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Jennifer M. Meyers

Jennifer is a Shareholder in the firm's Casualty Department, where she handles all areas of general liability litigation. She has significant experience in a wide range of matters, including personal injury, premises liability, retail liability, and automobile liability. Jennifer has litigated a broad spectrum of cases, including slip and falls, property damage, motor vehicle accidents, dog bites, construction defects, mold exposure, and labor law. As a litigator, Jennifer passionately advocates for her clients in every case she handles and has brought her cases to successful resolution through trial, mediation and motion practice.  

Throughout her career, Jennifer has emphasized the importance of working closely with her clients to develop successful case strategies and effective litigation plans tailored to the unique issues presented by each case she works on. Jennifer also prides herself on her ability to develop good working relationships with her adversaries which ultimately benefit her clients and lead to greater success in the cases she handles.

Before joining the firm in 2015, Jennifer's practice was concentrated in professional liability insurance coverage with a focus on errors and omissions coverage for securities broker/dealers and registered representatives. In this role, Jennifer also assisted in the drafting of insurance policies.

Jennifer graduated from American University in Washington, DC in 2006, with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Public Communications and a minor in Business Administration. She received her juris doctor in 2010, graduating cum laude from Pace Law School.  During her time in law school, Jennifer served as president of the American Constitution Society, participated in Moot Court and volunteered with the Unemployment Action Center.

    • The Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University (J.D., cum laude, 2010)
    • American University (B.A., 2006)
    • New York, 2011
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York, 2016
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, 2016
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch©, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2022)
    • Hudson Valley Magazine, Top Lawyer (2022)
    • Westchester Women's Bar Association, January 2015
    • Pre-suit Litigation: How to Effectively Investigate Your Claim, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, January 25th, 2023
    • Best Billing Practices, CLE Client Seminar, May 2, 2014
    • "When is it Too Late to Change Your Theory of the Case?" New York Law Journal, Litigation Special Report, March 13, 2023
    • Obtained summary judgment dismissing third-party plaintiff's claims for contribution and indemnification on behalf of a snow removal contractor, in a case where parties failed to demonstrate any breach of duty owed by the snow removal contractor.
    • Won two appeals before the Appellate Division, Second Department. We represented an out-of-possession landlord in a personal injury action which became the subject to two appeals before the Appellate Division, Second Department. The plaintiff worked in retail and was allegedly injured due to a claimed defect to the front door. After we moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff opposed our motion and made an entirely new allegation of liability against our client. She also sought leave to amend her bill of particulars to assert this new claim. The plaintiff's motion to amend was granted, and our motion for summary judgment was denied with leave to renew after additional discovery relating to the plaintiff's new claim. We appealed this decision. The Appellate Court unanimously reversed the decision granting the plaintiff's motion to amend and reversed its order denying summary judgment, finding that our insured was an out-of-possession landlord. With respect to the second appeal, after the plaintiff was given leave to amend her bill of particulars, we conducted further discovery and moved for summary judgment a second time, and we won this motion. The court agreed with our position that our client was an out-of-possession landlord, and the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate notice. The plaintiff appealed this decision. The Appellate Court unanimously dismissed her appeal. 
    • Obtained summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's case on the grounds that plaintiff did not put forth sufficient evidence establishing her claim that she sustained a "Serious Injury" pursuant to New York State Insurance Law § 5102(d).
    • Obtained a defense verdict in a property damage trial, where the plaintiff was claiming ongoing flooding and damage to her condominium.
    • Obtained summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's case in a personal injury action where the plaintiff was a passenger on a school bus involved in an accident. Jennifer demonstrated that plaintiff did not put forth sufficient evidence establishing her claim that she sustained a "Serious Injury" pursuant to New York State Insurance Law § 5102(d).
    • Obtained summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's case in a slip and fall action, where the plaintiff failed to establish creation or notice, and therefore, could not prove any negligence on the part of the condominium.
    • Obtained summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against an out of possession landlord following a workplace injury.
    • Obtained summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint in a personal injury action wherein the plaintiff claimed she fell on a defective sidewalk in Yonkers, New York.

Thought Leadership

View all

Case Law Alerts

Federal Court Dismisses Portions of Plaintiff’s Claims Against Insurer for Failing to Pay UIM Benefits

October 1, 2023

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and claims to have sustained serious personal injuries. The plaintiff had $600,000 in underinsured/uninsured motorist coverage with his insurer. The plaintiff settled his primary underinsured claim and the third-party bodily injury claim with the tortfeasor for the total policy limits and for the majority of the primary uninsured limits.  The plaintiff claimed that his insurer delayed in paying the UIM benefits. In its defense of USAA, Marshall Dennehey moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, and we successfully knocked out a number of the plaintiff’s claims, including the claim for bad faith. Interestingly, the court determined that the plaintiff did not allege sufficient grounds as a matter of law to establish bad faith—noting that “negligence or bad judgment does not equate to bad faith.”  This determination appears to narrow the application of the second prong establishing bad faith, which requires that the insurer “knew or recklessly disregarded the lack of reasonable basis.”      Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Case Law Alerts

Federal District Court Finds that Mental Health Records Are Not Discoverable Under Ohio State Law

October 1, 2023

While the plaintiff claimed that, following his motor vehicle accident with the defendants’ semi-trailer truck, he suffered from “head pain, neck pain, headaches, sensitivity to light, sensitivity to sound, trouble concentrating, memory loss…and mental anguish,” the defendants were denied the right to obtain the plaintiff’s mental health records as they were deemed unrelated to the subject claim.      Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Legislation Updates

Since June 1, 2026, there have been no new New Jersey workers’ compensation related cases from the Appellate or Supreme Courts. As such, below will highlight any new legislative updates since February. A1023 | S3984 - Medical Use of Cannabis Under Certain Circumstances This requires workers’ compensation, PIP, and health insurance coverage for the medical use of cannabis under certain circumstances. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee. It was also introduced on March 19, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. A1045  - Certain Injuries to Volunteer and Professional Public Safety and Law Enforcement Personnel This revises workers’ compensation coverage for certain injuries to volunteer and professional public safety and law enforcement personnel. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A1384 | S2757 - Reduce Statute of Limitations in Medical Fee Disputes This reduces statute of limitations from six years to two years in medical fee disputes in workers’ compensation matters. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A1870 | S1379 - Workers' Compensation Benefits For Certain Workers Due to September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks This provides workers’ compensation benefits for certain public safety workers who developed illness or injury as result of responding to September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On February 5, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. A2779 | S1521 - Excludes Certain Illegal Aliens This excludes certain illegal aliens from workers’ compensation and temporary disability benefits. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A2792 | S1555 -  Prevent Intoxicated Employees from Workers’ Compensation This prevents intoxicated employees from receiving workers’ compensation. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A3167 | S2372 - Workers’ Compensation Insurance Requirements for Certain Corporations and Partnerships This concerns workers’ compensation insurance requirements for certain corporations and partnerships. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A3548 | S3571 – Maximum Benefits for Certain Volunteers This provides certain volunteer and other workers with maximum compensation benefit for workers' compensation claim regardless of outside employment. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On March 2, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly State and Local Government Committee. A3724 - Personal Liability to Employer Officers for Failure to Pay for Coverage This provides personal liability for owner, executive officer, or executive director of employer for failure to pay for workers' compensation coverage. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee. A4617  - Certain Workers' Compensation Supplemental Benefits and Funding Method This concerns certain workers' compensation supplemental benefits and funding method. For a permanently and totally disabled worker or surviving dependents after December 31, 1979, with some exceptions, this bill provides for an annual cost of living adjustment in the weekly workers’ compensation benefit rate. It was introduced on March 10, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. S241 - Inclusion in Database of Appointed Officials This requires that workers’ compensation judges and administrative law judges be included in database of appointed officials. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 to the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee. S2290 -  Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 72. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. S3144 - Testimony in Workers’ Compensation This concerns submission of testimony in workers’ compensation claims. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. S3342  - Increase Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 75. It was introduced on February 5, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/

Thought Leadership

Appellate Court Rejects Horizontal Immunity Defense to Company Not Acting as Statutory Subcontractor

The First District Court of Appeal held that a property management company was not entitled to horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in a negligence action brought by an employee of another company working on the property. The claimant was injured while servicing a swimming pool at an apartment complex. His employer had contracted with the property owner to maintain the pool. Following the accident, the claimant received workers' compensation benefits through his employer’s carrier. The claimant subsequently filed a negligence action against the property management company, alleging that it failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn him of a dangerous condition that caused his injuries. The property management company had been retained by the property owner to maintain the complex in good operating condition and to perform routine maintenance and repair work. The property management company argued that it was immune from suit under section 440.10(1)(e) of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law. That provision grants immunity to a subcontractor providing services in conjunction with a contractor on the same project or contract work from civil actions brought by employees of another subcontractor, subject to limited exceptions. According to the property management company, it qualified as a subcontractor working on the same project as the claimant’s employer and was therefore entitled to horizontal immunity. The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment in its favor. On appeal, however, the claimant argued, and the appellate court agreed, that horizontal immunity applies only when a contractor has sublet work arising from a contractual obligation owed to a third party. The court noted that prior decisions consistently held that an entity acting solely on its own behalf as the owner of property, rather than pursuant to a contract with a third party, is not a “contractor” under section 440.10(1), even when it hires other companies to perform work on the property. In Teed, the property management company could not establish that the property owner had a primary contractual obligation to a third party to maintain either the apartment complex or the swimming pool, which it then delegated to the claimant’s employer or the property management company. As a result, the property owner did not qualify as a statutory contractor, and the property management company was not a subcontractor entitled to horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e). The First District therefore reversed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings on the claimant’s negligence claim.

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

News

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

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Holds That a Claimant Who Was Struck By a Car While Crossing the Street During an Unpaid Break Was In the Course and Scope of Employment

This case involved a claim petition filed by a claimant who sustained injuries after being struck by a vehicle while crossing the street in front of the employer’s premises. The employer denied the claim based on course and scope, as the accident occurred during one of two mandatory fifteen (15) minute breaks provided to the claimant. The claimant would punch out at the beginning of a break and punch back in when the break was over.  On the date of the incident, the claimant punched out and left the building to get lunch at a restaurant, which required her to cross the employer’s parking lot, and then a public street, where the injury occurred. The Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ) dismissed the petition, noting that that during the two mandatory fifteen-minute breaks per shift allowed by the employer, the claimant was free to leave the employer’s premises, and during breaks, permitted to engage in whatever activity she desired. The WCJ found that at the time of the accident, the claimant was on her own time, in the middle of the street, and going to get lunch.   The claimant filed an appeal with the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board), and the Board reversed.  According to the Board, the claimant’s location was still on the employer’s premises, as the claimant was taking her customary route while using a reasonable ingress/egress from the employer.  Further, the Board found that the “Personal Comfort Doctrine” applied, as the claimant was on a momentary departure to take care of her personal comfort, within the window of time she was allotted for her break.  The Board remanded the case, and a WCJ granted the claim petition.  The Board affirmed, and the employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Before the Court, the employer argued that the claimant was not in the course and scope of her employment, because the injury did not occur on its premises, and the claimant was outside the bounds of the Personal Comfort Doctrine. The Court, however, rejected these arguments, and dismissed the employer’s appeal.  The Court noted that the break given to the claimant was so cursory, when she set out to relieve her hunger for her own personal comfort,  she remained in the course of her employment when she sustained her injuries.  A Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the Supreme Court has been filed by the Employer, Giant Eagle.

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial