.

John J. Hare

Member, Executive Committee

Chair, Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice

Portrait of John J. Hare

John is a member of Marshall Dennehey's three-person Executive Committee, which is responsible for the firm’s daily operations and management of more than 500 attorneys across 19 offices in seven states. He also serves on the firm’s Board of Directors and as chair of the fifteen-attorney Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice.

As appellate counsel, John has litigated more than 500 appeals in state and federal appellate courts, representing individuals, corporations, and insurers in many of Pennsylvania’s highest-profile civil appeals. As amicus curiae counsel, John has represented a diverse clientele, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, the American Medical Association, the Pennsylvania Medical Society, the Pennsylvania Defense Institute, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, other Pennsylvania lawyers, and academics interested in the outcome of appellate litigation.

John is actively involved in the Pennsylvania legal community. He has edited and co-authored two books on Pennsylvania appellate courts. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; Life and Law in the Commonwealth, 1684-2017, was published by the Pennsylvania State University Press in 2018. Keystone of Justice: The Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1895-1995, was published by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 2000.  

John serves by appointment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as the co-chair of the Court’s Historical Commission and on the Commission on Judicial Independence, a group of state and federal judges, academics, and attorneys who promote public awareness of the importance of a strong and independent judiciary. He also spent six years on the Supreme Court’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee, the last two years as chair, and served on the Board of Governors of the Bar Association of the Third Federal Circuit and as co-chair of the Amicus Curiae Committee of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute. He also serves on the advisory board of Ohlbaum on the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence (Lexis-Nexis) and regularly speaks at appellate court events and continuing legal education seminars.

Pennsylvania Super Lawyers magazine has repeatedly recognized John as a Top 100 lawyer in both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania based on a peer selection and evaluation process. He has also been selected as a Super Lawyer in the area of appellate practice every year since 2008. He has been repeatedly selected to The Best Lawyers in America and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, a member of the International Association of Defense Counsel, and has an AV Preeminent (5.0/5.0) rating by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest rating for professional competence.

John is regularly called upon by the media to provide insight and commentary on significant legal issues. To view recent articles in which John is quoted, click the Media Commentary section below.

    • Princeton University (1999)
      • coursework completed for Ph.D.
    • University of California, Berkeley (M.A., 1998)
    • Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University (J.D., 1993)
      • Editor Duquesne Law Review
    • Indiana University of Pennsylvania (B.A., magna cum laude, 1990)
    • Pennsylvania, 1994
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 4th Circuit
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania
    • Chambers USA, Pennsylvania: Litigation: Appellate, Band One (2025-2026)
    • Legal 500 Philadelphia Legal Elite, Commercial Disputes (2025-2026)
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Appellate Practice (2024-2026)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2008-2026; Top 100 in Pennsylvania, 2018-2026; Top 100 in Philadelphia, 2018-2026)
    • Philadelphia Business Journal, Best of the Bar Award, 2023 and 2018
    • The Philadelphia Inquirer, Influencers of Law Award, 2019
    • American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, Fellow, 2016
    • Bar Association for the Third Federal Circuit
    • International Association of Defense Counsel, 2018
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute, 2008
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Civil Procedural Rules Committee, 2015-2021; Chair, 2019-2021
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Historical Commission, Co-Chair, 2023
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Commission on Judicial Independence, 2024
    • Combatting Nuclear Verdicts in Plaintiff-Friendly Jurisdictions, A.M. Best Insurance Law Podcast, October 30, 2025
    • New Voir Dire Rule  Pa.R.C.P. 220.3, Philadelphia Bar Association Live Webcast CLE, March 19, 2025
    • Speak Easy and Write Stuff: Effective Communication Techniques for Appellate Courts, CLE presented to Superior Court of Pennsylvania judges, law clerks, and legal staff, September 22, 2023
    • The Chief Justices of Pennsylvania, CLE presented to Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at The Lawyers Club of Philadelphia, September 14, 2023
    • The Transformation of Pennsylvania Law, CLE presented for Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, September 11, 2023
    • Annual Civil Litigation Update 2023, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, August 31, 2023
    • Litigation Update Seminar, Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, May 29, 2023
    • The Development of Our Supreme Court, Tricentennial Anniversary of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, National Constitution Center, May 21-22, 2022, Moderator and Speaker
    • Civil Litigation Update 2022, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, March 4, 2022
    • Civil Litigation Update 2021, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, March 4, 2021
    • Judicial Engagement and the Pennsylvania Constitution, Institute for Justice, Center for Judicial Engagement, October 16, 2020
    • The “New” Pennsylvania Supreme Court; Reflections on the Last Three-Plus Years, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, September 9, 2019
    • Your Case is in the News; Handling High-Profile Litigation, Moderator, American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, 2019 Spring Conference, April 13, 2019
    • The Pennsylvania Constitution: An Independent Source of Rights and Judicial Power, Pennsylvania State Trial Judges Conference, February 21, 2019
    • The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: Life and Law in the Commonwealth, 1684-2017: A Conversation, hosted by Duquesne University for Pennsylvania Supreme Court, October 24, 2018
    • "What Lawyers Can do to Protect and Promote Judicial Independence,” Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly, January 2026
    • "Chief Justice Baer and the Supreme Court’s Tricentennial Anniversary," 62 Duquesne Law Review 1, Winter 2024
    • "Medical Malpractice Venue Un-Reform," Claims Judicial and Legislative Affairs Quarterly Update (CJLA), Spring 2023
    • The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; Life and Law in the Commonwealth, 1684-2017 (Hare ed., Penn State, 2018)
    • "What’s New In 2017? Filing Trends and Developments In Asbestos Litigation," Mealey's Litigation Reports, August 16, 2017
    • "Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant; Solutions to the Concealment of Asbestos Trust Filings in Tort Litigation," For The Defense, April 2016
    • "Uncloaking Bankruptcy Trust Filings In Asbestos Litigation: Refuting the Myths About Transparency," Mealey's Asbestos Bankruptcy Report and Mealey's Litigation Report Asbestos, April 2016
    • "Uncloaking Bankruptcy Trust Filings In Asbestos Litigation: A Survey Of Solutions To The Types Of Conduct Exposed In Garlock's Bankruptcy," Mealey's Asbestos Bankrupcty Report, August 28, 2015
    • "Keystone of Justice: The Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1895-1995," Pennsylvania Press, 2000
    • "Pa. Supreme Court justices rarely lose seats in retention elections, so why is this year's race so important?", Philly Voice, September 29, 2025
    • "Monsanto Takes Roundup Preemption Defense to Pennsylvania Supreme Court,"The Legal Intelligencer, August 15, 2025
    • "Where Did All of Philadelphia's Big Verdicts Go?"The Legal Intelligencer, July 31, 2025
    • "Key Issue in Roundup Litigation Gets First-Time Review From Pa. Appeals Court,"The Legal Intelligencer, March 28, 2025
    • "Justices Wary of Overturning Longstanding Precedent on Tort Immunity for General Contractors,"The Legal Intelligencer, March 6, 2025
    • "Diving Into a Judicial Hellhole – A look at ATRF’s latest list and examining the top jurisdiction,"CLM Magazine, January 7, 2025
    • "Philly and the Pa. Supreme Court Are Top 'Judicial Hellholes,' A Tort Reform Group Says. Trial Attorneys Aren't Happy."The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 12, 2024.
    • "Judge Orders New Trial in Temple Health Medical Malpractice Case with $45 Million Jury Verdict,"The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 11, 2024
    • "Turning the Tables: Defense Litigators Embrace Lawsuits, Alleging Fraud at Plaintiffs Shops,"The American Lawyer, October 7, 2024
    • "Pa. High Court Reversal Rate of Superior Court Rulings Has Plummeted, Report Shows,"The Legal Intelligencer, April 23, 2024
    • "As Stakes Escalate, Kline & Specter Begin Stepping in to Defend Phila.’s Largest Verdicts Post-Trial,"The Legal Intelligencer, January 31, 2024
    • "Parties Clash Over Jury Instruction in Hearing on $976M Defective Seatbelt Verdict,"The Legal Intelligencer, April 2, 2024
    • "Unanimity Is Rare on Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Data Reveals," The Legal Intelligencer, February 15, 2024
    • "Pennsylvania Litigation To Watch In 2024" Law360, January 1, 2024
    • "Top Pennsylvania Cases of 2023," Law360, December 21, 2023
    • "'Passion and Prejudice': Mitsubishi Seeks to Overturn Nearly $1B Defective Seatbelt Verdict,"The Legal Intelligencer, November 15, 2023
    • "Superior Court Breaks String of Plaintiff-Side Forum Rulings, Upholding Case's Move From Phila." The Legal Intelligencer, November 1, 2023
    • "Could Proposed Changes to Civil Jury Selection Rules Slow Down Pa.'s Courts?" The Legal Intelligencer, September 21, 2023
    • "Pa. Civil Law Has Developed Pro-Plaintiff Slant, PCCJR Panelists Say," The Legal Intelligencer, September 11, 2023
    • "Jury Verdicts Like the $183 Million Award Against Penn Medicine Can Be Tied Up for Years, But Usually Stand," The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 2, 2023
    • "PA Budget, Political Appointment Decisions for Gov. Josh Shapiro," GoErie.com, January 3, 2023
    • "Defense Attorneys Brace for Impacts as Medical Malpractice Venue Rule Changes Loom," The Legal Intelligencer, October 5, 2022
    • "Pa. Legal Community Remembers Chief Justice Baer as a Consensus Builder, Family Law Icon," The Legal Intelligencer, October 3, 2022
    • "Lawyers Argue for New Trial, Reduction of $19 Million Verdict for Pool Injury," The Tribune-Review, August 8, 2022
    • "Woman Gifted Groupon Massage Must Arbitrate Assault Claims: Court," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, August 2, 2022
    • "Guns, Abortion & Voting Rights: 5 Critical PA Supreme Court Cases to Keep an Eye on in 2022," Pocono Record, July 18, 2022
    • "Plaintiffs Seek to Narrow Pa. High Court's Ruling Axing Jurisdiction by Business Registration," The Legal Intelligencer, February 1, 2022
    • "Pa. Justices: Defense Attorney's Question During Ex-NFL Player's Med Mal Trial Was Not Improper," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, December 28, 2021
    • "Pa. Justices Say Two Disputed Words Don't Warrant New Trial," Law360, December 22, 2021
    • "Pa. Justices Split Over Whether Two Words Warrant Retrial," Law360, September 21, 2021
    • "'Even Bad People': Legal Community Divided on Unpopular Decision That Freed Cosby," The Legal Intelligencer, July 1, 2021
    • "Pa. Cases to Watch in 2021: Midyear Report," Law360, July 9, 2021
    • "Pa. Atty Off Hook for Extended Interest on Malpractice Award," Law360, March 31, 2021
    • "Pa. Justices Snub Appeal Over Axed $40M Spinal Injury Award," Law360, March 30, 2021
    • "Pennsylvania Cases to Watch in 2021," Law360, January 3, 2021
    • "Pa. Court Scraps $40M Suburban Phila. Jury Verdict Over Birth Injury," The Legal Intelligencer, July 20, 2020
    • "Measure to Split Pa. Court Seats Seen as Political Play," Law360, July 17, 2020
    • "Pa. Panel Wipes Out $40M Award for Baby's Spinal Injury," Law360, July 16, 2020
    • "Top Pennsylvania Cases of 2020: A Midyear Report," Law360, July 2, 2020
    • "3rd Circ. Punts Amazon Seller Liability Case to Pa. Justices," Law360, June 2, 2020
    • "Panel Axes $10M Award in Surgery Patient's Drug Death Suit," Law360, April 9, 2020
    • "Pa. Appeals Court Slashes Award; Finds Jury Went Too Far With $10 Million Verdict," The Legal Intelligencer, April 9, 2020
    • "Pennsylvania Cases to Watch in 2020", Law 360, January 3, 2020 
    • "Drifting Away From Precedent?: Some See Pa. Supreme Court Upending Established Case Law," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, December 23, 2019
    • "The Biggest Pa. Appellate Rulings Of 2019: Midyear Report," Law360, July 3, 2019
    • "Pa. Jurisdiction in Grenfell Tower Suit May be Tested by Evolving Case Law," The Legal Intelligencer, June 12, 2019
    • “Law Firms Going ‘Old School’ as Phila. Court System Struggles to Recover From Computer Virus,” The Legal Intelligencer, May 31, 2019
    • "At Last, Unpublished Superior Court Opinions Can Be Cited. Now What?," The Legal Intelligencer, March 29, 2019
    • "This Pennsylvania Committee Is Proposing Changes That Benefit Five Of Its Members' Law Firms," Forbes and Pennsylvania Record, February 19, 2019
    • "Tough Sell On Cancer Link Awaits At 1st Philly Talc Trial," Law360, February 5, 2019
    • "CBS Tells Justices No Liability For Asbestos Added By Others, Law360, September 20, 2018
    • "The Biggest Pa. Appellate Rulings Of 2018: Midyear Report," Law360, July 12, 2018
    • "Judge Says Pa.'s Corporate Registration Law Doesn't Create Jurisdiction," The Legal Intelligencer, June 11, 2018
    • "Superior Court Throws Out $32M Wrongful Death Award," The Legal Intelligencer, May 3, 2018
    • "Pa. Tort Ruling Highlights Discrepancies in Jury Instructions," Law360, February 23, 2018
    • "Commonwealth Court: Philly Beverage Tax is Legal," WHYY's Keystone Crossroads, June 14, 2017. John's interview about the soda tax also aired on WHYY's Morning Edition program on June 16, 2017.
    • "Changes to PA Tort Law Not Coming Fast Enough, Attorneys Say," Law360, April 20, 2017
    • "Justices' 'Abnormal' Requests Pose Legislative Challenges," The Legal Intelligencer, October 7, 2017
    • "Attorneys Agree Ban on Citing Nonprecedential Opinions is a Hurdle," The Legal Intelligencer, September 1, 2016
    • "The Biggest PA Appeals Court Decisions So Far in 2016," Law360, August 4, 2016
    • "Appellate Courts Prepare to Transition Interim Appointees," The Legal Intelligencer, July 11, 2016
    • "Zimmer Win May Force Harder Look at Runaway Verdicts," Law360, June 10, 2016
    • "'When in Doubt, Appeal' in Consolidated Cases," The Legal Intelligencer, May 31, 2016
    • "Superior Court's 2016 Output Low on Civil Rulings," The Legal Intelligencer, May 27, 2016
    • "Revamped PA High Court Looks To Make Mark on Tort Law," Law360, February 4, 2016
    • "Supreme Court Orders Reargument in 26 Cases From 2015," The Legal Intelligencer, January 22, 2016.
    • "Intermediate Courts Must Weather Vacancies," The Legal Intelligencer, January 9, 2016
    • "Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin Tearfully Apologizes, Defends Reputation in Porn Email Hearing," Allentown Morning Call, December 21, 2015
    • "Eakin, 'Bruno' and the State of Judicial Discipline in PA," The Legal Intelligencer, December 18, 2015
    • "JCB Faces Challenges in Proving Violations by Eakin," The Legal Intelligencer, December 11, 2015
    • "Litigants May Test High Court After Turnover," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, November 17, 2015
    • "Dems' PA High Court Sweep Could Shake Up Enviro, Tort Law," Law360, November 4, 2015
    • "Report: Supreme Court Should Defer to JCB on Eakin Emails," The Legal Intelligencer, November 3, 2015
    • "Zimmer Ruling Continues Pa. Justices' Pro-Plaintiff Trend," Law360, October 28, 2015
    • "Lawyers Say Discipline, Not Removal, Likely for Eakin," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, October 20, 2015
    • "Rekindled Email Scandal Tests State Supreme Court, Again," The Legal Intelligencer, October 6, 2015
    • "Saylor's Comments Raise More Questions Over AG Kane's Fate," The Legal Intelligencer, September 30, 2015
    • "Fee Sanctions Must Be Filed Soon After Final Order," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, September 28, 2015
    • "Rule Changes Clear Up Legal Gray Area in Post-Trial Motions," Legal Intelligencer, July 14, 2015
    • "Raising Pa. Supreme Court Output Easier Said Than Done?," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, March 31, 2015
    • "Police Owe No Duty to Unknown Passengers in Fleeing Car," The Legal Intelligencer, January 5, 2015
    • "Pennsylvania Cases To Watch In 2015," Law360, January 2, 2015
    • Amagasu v. Mitsubishi, 2025 WL 3708201 (Pa. Super. 2025) (vacating $1.09 billion jury verdict and remanding for new trial)
    • Yoder v. McCarthy Constr., Inc., 345 A.3d 668 (Pa. 2025) (vacating $5.6 million judgment and remanding for further proceedings)
    • Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc., 333 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2025), cert. denied, 25-120, 2025 WL 3620464 (U.S. Dec. 15, 2025) (reversing Superior Court and holding that federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was constitutional)
    • Smith v. CMS W., Inc., 305 A.3d 593 (Pa. Super. 2023) (applying forum non conveniens to transfer litigation out of Philadelphia County)
    • Johnson v. Toll Bros., Inc., 302 A.3d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2023) (rejecting challenge to Pennsylvania’s construction statute of repose)
    • Doe v. Hand & Stone Franchise Corp., 283 A.3d 391 (Pa. Super. 2022) (enforcing arbitration provisions in online marketing agreement)
    • Steltz v. Meyers, 265 A.3d 335 (Pa. 2021) (reversing lower courts and reinstating defense jury verdict for physician and practice group improperly blamed for ending NFL player’s career)
    • Charlton v. Troy, 236 A.3d 22 (Pa. Super. 2020), reargument denied (Sept. 23, 2020), appeal denied, 251 A.3d 772 (Pa. 2021) (vacating $40.2 million jury verdict and remanding for new trial)
    • Ramsey v. Buchanan Auto Park, 2021 WL 5165823 (M.D. Pa. 2021) (vacating $500,000 jury verdict and remanding for new trial)
    • Roverano v. John Crane, Inc., 226 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2020) (reversing Superior Court and holding that juries may apportion liability to nonparty bankruptcy trusts) (amicus counsel for defense organizations)
    • Kimble v. Laser Spine Institute et al., No. 2016-00569 (Chester Cty., 2019) (vacating $10 million jury verdict and granting judgment n.o.v.)
    • Straw v. Golon et al.,187 A.3d 966 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied, 2019 Pa.LEXIS 950 (Pa. 2019) (vacating $35 million judgment and remanding for new trial)
    • Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (reversing Superior Court and holding that retroactive registration under Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law violates ex post facto clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions) (amicus counsel for 22 individuals)
    • Rost v. Ford Motor Co., 151 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2016) (invalidating Philadelphia’s mandatory consolidation of asbestos cases for trial) (amicus counsel for defense organizations)
    • Keith v. Commonwealth ex rel. Pa. Dep't of Agric., 151 A.3d 687 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (invalidating Department of Agriculture regulations permitting commercial dog breeders to restrict nursing mothers' access to exercise areas and use wire flooring in cages) (amicus counsel for American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)
    • Nertavich v. PPL Elec. Utilities, 124 A.3d 734 (Pa. 2015) (vacating $4.6 million jury verdict and granting judgment n.o.v.) (amicus counsel for defense organizations)
    • Nelson v. Airco Welders Supply, 107 A.3d 146 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, (Pa. 2017) (vacating $14.5 million jury verdict and remanding for new trial)
    • Sellers v. Twp. of Abington, 106 A.3d 679 (Pa. 2014) (upholding lower court rulings that police officers ow no duty to unknown passengers in fleeing vehicles)
    • Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., 89 A.3d 643 (Pa. 2014) (vacating $1.5 million jury verdict and granting judgment n.o.v.)
    • Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 78 A.3d 1060 (Pa. 2013) (holding that showing of prejudice due to insured’s untimely notice did not require proof of what insurer would have found had notice been timely)
    • McGarvey v. Penske Auto Grp., Inc., 486 Fed.Appx. 276 (3d Cir. 2012) (holding that warranty for auto theft system did not violate New Jersey Truth–in–Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (NJTCCA)).
    • Edkin v. Brethren Mut. Ins. Co., 24 A.3d 444 (Pa. Super. 2011) (vacating $2 million verdict and granting judgment n.o.v.)
    • Griffin v. Harrisburg Prop. Servs., Inc., 421 Fed.Appx. 204 (3d Cir. 2011) (affirming district court ruling that employer’s adequate remedial action precluded liability for harassment)
    • State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Estate of Mehlman, 589 F.3d 105 (3d Cir. 2009) (reversing district court and holding that insurer had no duty to provide coverage for victim’s lawsuit based on insured’s intentional conduct)
    • Urbach v. Kentile, 915 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. 2006) (vacating $5 million jury verdict and remanding for new trial)
    • Toogood v. Rogal, 824 A.2d 1140 (Pa. 2003) (vacating $465,000 jury verdict and granting judgment n.o.v.)
    • Philadelphia Owners Association v. City of Philadelphia et al., 57 Fed. Appx. 961 (3d Cir. 2003) (reversing district court and ruling that municipal ordinance did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution)
    • Van Zandt v. Holy Redeemer Hosp., 823 A.2d 145 (Pa. 2003) (vacating $323,000 jury verdict and granting judgment n.o.v.)
    • Smith v. Rao, No. 2899 EDA 2001 (Pa. Super. 2002) (vacating $3 million jury verdict and remanding for new trial)

Results

Favorable Precedential Decision Obtained in High-Stakes Construction Defect Case

We prevailed in a unanimous, precedential decision in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which reconciled conflicting case law in the state. The plaintiffs were joined by 55 amici, and our client was joined by numerous construction organizations as amici. The court eventually applied Pennsylvania’s statute of repose to bar construction defect claims brought by homeowners.

Pennsylvania Appellate Courts Uphold Nonsuit Obtained By Jack Delany In $11.5 Million Construction Death Case

By Order dated April 5, 2023, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania refused to review the Superior Court’s affirmance of a 2021 nonsuit obtained by Jack Delany in hotly contested litigation stemming from the death of a construction worker. John Hare and Shane Haselbarth handled the appeal along with Jack. The Supreme Court’s ruling ends more than five years of litigation that arose from the construction worker’s death while he was involved in the Pier 78 renovation project on the Delaware River in Philadelphia. The plaintiff sued the general contractor and others involved in the project and ultimately settled with the general contractor for $10.5 million. The general contractor then pursued a contractual indemnification claim against Jack Delany’s concrete subcontractor client on the Pier 78 project. The indemnification claim included the $10.5 million settlement plus approximately $1 million in attorneys’ fees.   The case proceeded to trial in 2021 and, at the close of the general contractor’s case-in-chief, Jack moved for and was granted a nonsuit on the basis that the general contractor was the deceased construction workers’ statutory employer pursuant to the five-element test set forth by the PA Supreme Court in McDonald v. Levinson Steel, 153 A. 424 (Pa. 1930). The case was especially notable because, rather than retaining an attorney to address the reasonableness of the amount of the underlying settlement, which is typical, Jack retained an economist to explain that, based upon his analysis of comparable cases, the settlement amount was excessive. The general contractor appealed the nonsuit. In an unanimous decision dated September 30, 2022, the Superior Court affirmed. The Supreme Court denial of allowance of appeal brings the lengthy litigation to an end.    

Thought Leadership

Events

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

Freight brokers are intermediaries.  They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods.  Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents.  At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).  Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA .  Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption.  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA.  That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies. 

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher

A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.