.

Marshall Dennehey Trial Lawyers and Appellate Chair Talk Nuclear Verdicts in A.M. Best’s Insurance Law Podcast

November 7, 2025

Three attorneys from Marshall Dennehey— John “Jack” Delany, III, Chair of Marshall Dennehey’s Catastrophic Claims Litigation Practice Group, veteran medical malpractice shareholder Gary Samms, and John J. Hare, chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group—were featured presenters in a recent episode of A.M. Best’s Insurance Law Podcast. In “Combatting Nuclear Verdicts in Plaintiff-Friendly Jurisdictions,” the trio of attorneys explored strategies for preventing and mitigating nuclear verdicts, particularly in high-exposure litigation.

Gary Samms emphasized the importance of early case preparation. “If I’m waiting to get to the courtroom before I start thinking about [nuclear verdicts], then we’re in trouble, quite frankly,” Samms said. He stressed the need for thorough investigation and expert engagement from the outset: “We want to make sure that we know the medicine, we can communicate the medicine, we have retained experts that can explain it.” Samms also highlighted the role of jury perception: “A bad outcome does not equal negligence in and of itself.”

John “Jack” Delany, III echoed the importance of early strategic planning. “We preach that you have to assemble the A‑team upfront,” Delany said. “If there’s an explosion at a chocolate plant, or a grain mill, or a building collapse… we’re there with things that the typical defense firm does at the end of the case, we do it upfront.” He also emphasized the need for critical thinking and storytelling: “In order to tell a persuasive story, you need to have a strategic plan of how do you get that content for your story.”

John J. Hare discussed the dual role of appellate counsel in high-stakes litigation. “Appellate lawyers can be extremely useful… to help trial counsel and the client win at trial,” Hare explained. “We can focus on research and bench briefs and making dispositive motions that either eliminate the claim entirely or at least limit the opponent’s claims.” He also noted the importance of preserving issues for appeal: “If the case cannot be won in a trial court, it can be won on appeal.”

The full podcast episode is available here: https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/insurance-law-podcast-am-best/2025/10/combatting-nuclear-verdicts-in-plaintiff-friendly-jurisdictions/. 

Best's Insurance Law Podcast

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.