.

John J. Delany, III

Chair, Catastrophic Claims Litigation

Portrait of John J. Delany III

Jack defends catastrophic, high-profile, high-exposure cases against some of the country’s most formidable plaintiff firms. With a focus on construction, asbestos and toxic torts, transportation, fire casualty and product liability, he has taken to conclusion more than 60 jury trials, as well as hundreds of bench trials, arbitrations and mediations. Additionally, Jack represents clients in litigation involving fire and explosion claims, sexual assaults, negligent security, and hospitality and dram shop claims. He also handles specialty, high risk claims in the areas of amusements, entertainment, recreational, sports and specialty events.  Additionally, Jack has represented venues, contractors and building managers to name a few, in wrongful death suits and personal injury litigation involving elevators, electronic door issues and escalators. This litigation dealt with leveling, door closing, malfunctions and prolonged elevators stuck between floors.

He represents many Fortune 500 companies directly and as insureds, and handles complex litigation matters at the federal and state levels and in administrative agencies and alternate dispute resolution forums. Jack also serves as national coordinating counsel for several product manufacturers.  

Prior to joining the firm, Jack was the founding partner of the Delany Law firm and co-founded Delany & O’Brien, which operated for 24 years in Philadelphia. During his career, he also ran the Philadelphia office of a large New Jersey/New York firm and worked as assistant counsel for the Philadelphia Housing Authority.

Jack is a Certified Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy and is certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney. He is a member of the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel (FDCC), where he serves as Trial Masters Co-Chair, Technology Committee Co-Chair and Toxic Torts Co-Chair. He also enjoys serving pro bono as an adjunct professor in the Temple Law School Trial Advocacy Program, LLM and as a Judge Pro Tempore for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and is an author, editor and presenter on trial advocacy. 

    • Quinnipiac University School of Law (J.D., 1985)
    • Albright College (B.A., 1982)
    • Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • New Jersey
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey
    • New York
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit
    • Supreme Court of the United States
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2026)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2004-2014, 2019-2026)
    • Philadelphia Business Journal, Best of the Bar Award (2023)
    • Litigation Counsel of America
    • Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel
    • New Jersey Bar Association
    • New Jersey Defense Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Defense Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • "Are the Eyes A Window to One's Soul? American Mother - A Story of Grace, Humanity and Radical Empathy in the Law," Federation Flyer, publication of the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel (FDCC). Summer 2025
    • Strategically defended and obtained the dismissal of a Laidlow claim asserted by the plaintiff who was acting within the course and scope of his employment with the defendant when he sustained a significant workplace injury. In a 37-page written opinion granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and addressing several other applications, the court ruled the plaintiff failed to establish that his employer committed an intentional and malicious act sufficient to circumvent the workers’ compensation exclusivity provision. In reaching this conclusion, the court applied the Millison “conduct” and “context” prongs, reasoning that the absence of prior accidents or evidence suggesting the plaintiff’s employer intentionally disabled a safety device, the lack of pre-incident OSHA violations or post-accident efforts by the employer to deceive OSHA, and the undeniable determination that the plaintiff’s incident was “part and parcel” of industrial life, all warranted the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant employer and the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim. You can read the opinion here.  

Results

Thought Leadership

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.