.

John T. McGrath Jr.

Office Managing Attorney

Co-Chair, Automobile Liability Practice

Portrait of John T. McGrath Jr.

John (Jack) is a member of the Casualty Department and co-chair of the firm's auto liability practice. He focuses his practice on the defense of auto liability, representing over a thousand automobile cases to conclusion. The majority of cases ended in defense verdicts or verdicts lower than the settlement offers. Jack is also the managing shareholder and casualty supervising attorney of the firm's Scranton office with responsibility for the daily operations and oversight of the office's attorneys and support staff.

Jack is a graduate of Penn State University and a former member of law enforcement, having worked for the Lackawanna Sheriff's Department. While attending the Widener University School of Law, Jack worked as the commercial sales manager for ADT Security Systems in Philadelphia and southern New Jersey from 1988 through 1996.

Jack joined Marshall Dennehey in January of 1997 and became a shareholder in 2004. He is currently the lead attorney for the Dunmore High School Mock Trial Team and a basketball coach in his community.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 1995)
    • The Pennsylvania State University (B.S., 1985)
    • Pennsylvania, 1996
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 1996
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants (2024-2026)
    • American Board of Trial Advocates
    • Lackawanna County Bar Association
    • Luzerne County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • "The Relationship Between the Handling Attorney and the Claims Professional in Auto Liability," Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 1, March 2016
    • Defense of several auto cases in which the plaintiffs were killed. In each of these cases the demand was far in excess of the policy limits.
    • Defense of numerous auto cases involving pedestrians. Many of these cases have been tried to defense verdicts where the plaintiffs' injuries far exceeded the available coverage.
    • Defense of a hospital where the plaintiff was one of their own staff physicians who had a seizure while at work and was unable to return to his position as a physician. The allegations were that more should have been done initially when he had the seizure and the hospital should have been better equipped to deal with such situations. The lost wages alleged in this matter were over $7 million.
    • Defended an auto case in which the plaintiff was killed and plaintiff's counsel evoked the Dead Man's Rule. We were able to show that his expert, a state police officer, had interviewed our insured, thereby negating the Dead Man's Rule. The Superior Court agreed with our argument, and the defense verdict that we obtained in this litigation was upheld.
    • Defended an oncologist in a case where the plaintiff, an ophthalmologist who claimed he could no longer work, had multiple experts, including vocational, economic, psychiatric, orthopedic, and neurological practitioners. The initial demand was for our policy limits of $500,000. Through the use of our experts in a non-binding mediation, we were able to show the plaintiffs' experts would not hold up in front of a jury, and the case resolved for an amount far below the policy limits.
    • Obtained defense verdicts in several auto cases in northeast Pennsylvania where the underinsured motorist claims had gone to arbitration and six-figure awards have been granted. Most involved a minor impact with just soft tissue injuries.

Results

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Our Scranton, Pennsylvania, Office

June 1, 2023

The Scranton office of Marshall Dennehey is now in its 30th year. The firm began in Scranton with two attorneys practicing workers’ compensation law. Over the years, it has grown, and today, when it is at full capacity, there are 23 lawyers in the office. Attorneys presently working in the Scranton office, including myself, Ben Nicolosi, Leo Bohanski, Ross Carrozza, Pat Boland, and Robert Smith, have been with the firm over two decades. Many of those just mentioned have been here for over 25 years, and Ross has been here since the office opened. Over the last few years, several of our longest-tenured and esteemed attorneys have retired. Jim Pocius, John Aponick, Jim Wilson, Joe Vender, and Jennifer Callahan all retired, each having had between 20 and 30 years experience with the firm. Replacing that talent is almost impossible, but we have been very fortunate to bring on some young attorneys and lateral hires who have allowed our office to continue to flourish and grow. The experience and talent in our practice department is unmatched in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Those groups include workers’ compensation, casualty, professional liability, and health care. The workers’ compensation group is led by Mike Sebastian. Mike has worked in the workers’ compensation realm for over 30 years and has a long and distinguished list of clients who rely on him for all their workers’ compensation matters. As he has for many years, Ross Carrozza also ably litigates workers’ compensation cases. In addition, Ross is a leading expert in Medicare Set-Asides. The 60 years of combined experience possessed by Mike and Ross in workers’ compensation is an asset to the Scranton office and allows us to handle the most involved and difficult workers’ compensation cases.  The Casualty Department in the Scranton office presently has six attorneys: Ben Nicolosi, John Nealon, Leo Bohanski, Sarah Argo, Mike Connolly, and myself. Our experience in the casualty arena is envied by all of our competitors. Collectively, the department has tried over 200 cases to verdict in the counties in which we serve. Presently, I act as the firm’s Auto Liability Practice Group Chair. Ben Nicolosi handles high-profile trucking accident and product liability matters. Although many of the cases the department handles contain requests for punitive damages, no one in our department has ever been hit with a punitive damage award. Considering the volume of cases we handle and their serious nature, that is truly an accomplishment. There is not a casualty case or issue the Scranton office has not handled, and handled effectively. The Casualty Department litigates auto accidents, dram shop cases, product liability matters, construction defect cases, slip and falls, and any other type of casualty case that finds its way to our office.  Our Professionally Liability Department, when fully staffed, is the largest department in our office. Presently, William McPartland, who is the Co-Chair of our Special Education Law Practice Group, works with several school districts throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania. Many of the school districts in Luzerne, Lackawanna, and the outlying counties rely on Will for all of their education law practice needs. He also handles employment law and civil rights cases. Mark Kozlowski and Patrick Boland have very similar practices, which include civil rights, municipal, and professional liability practice litigation. They represent attorneys, engineers, and architects, and do a significant amount of work with homeowners associations and any disputes arising therein. Their practice continues to grow. Presently, Jordan Mazzoni, an associate, works with both of them, assisting with their growing practice.  Rob Smith is also in the Professional Lability Department, handling (almost exclusively) bad faith cases. Rob has a very large practice in this extremely specialized area, and several carriers look to him to handle their bad faith litigation. Underinsured motorist and uninsured motorist cases continue to be one of the biggest practice areas in the state for bad faith. Rob would certainly be considered an expert in that area.  Finally, Tom Specht is a member of our Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group. He litigates appeals in state and federal courts, having done so for the past 25 years. He also handles serious and complex pre-trial matters/motions (of a dispositive nature) and assists trial counsel in their preparation for trial, as well as appellate trial monitoring and motion/strategic assistance at trial. Tom’s practice is extremely varied, in that he litigates cases from every practice area within the firm and has the ability and experience to assist at any stage of the litigation process. He is a helpful, valuable resource for all of the attorneys in the office.  Our Professional Liability Department in the Scranton office is larger than those of all of our competitors in the area combined. This means that, if you were to put all of the professional liability attorneys in Northeastern Pennsylvania, other than those working for Marshall Dennehey, in one room, and the Marshall Dennehey attorneys in another, our department would outnumber the attorneys in the other room. Their expertise is unmatched. The variety of cases they handle is truly something to marvel at.  Last, but not least, is our Health Care Department. It is composed of five attorneys presently and will be expanding shortly. Victoria Scanlon is the supervising attorney in the Health Care Liability Practice Group of the Scranton office. She is an experienced litigator with nearly 20 years of experience representing physicians, midwives, nurse practitioners, nurses, physical therapists, hospitals, ambulatory service centers, and more. She also works with long-term personal care facilities and providers. Vicky has tried many cases to verdict and is an outstanding trial attorney.  Missy Dziak, a shareholder, as well, and has, for more than a decade, defended nurses, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, and really anyone in the health care field. She is licensed in both Pennsylvania and New York. Aside from medical malpractice, she also represents and advises one of the largest national independent food service distributors, providing strategic legal guidance in high-exposure litigation. Missy serves on Marshall Dennehey’s Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion Committee, which works to improve the recruitment, retention, and advancement of diverse attorneys and professionals. Missy is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Commission on Women and Profession and the Promotion of Women. She also has tried several cases to verdict in both Pennsylvania and New York.  Matt Keris is a shareholder in the Health Care Department who defends doctors as well as long-term care facilities. He is the Chair of the Electronic Medical Record and Audit Trail Practice Group. Matt tried the first case in Pennsylvania to verdict during the COVID-19 pandemic in July of 2020. Matt is the president of the DRI Foundation, which focuses on wellness and charitable interests affiliated with the Defense Research Institute. He is a former DRI board member and is currently on the steering committee for the Annual Insurance Roundtable. Matt was formerly president of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute and continues to serve as co-chair of the Medical Malpractice Liability Committee. Finally, he has twice-served as president of the Pennsylvania Association for Healthcare Risk Management and is an active member of the Claims and Litigation Alliance for American Legal Connections. Matt has tried many cases to verdict with over 20 years of experience in the field.  Rob Aldrich has worked his entire career defending health care professionals and institutions against malpractice liability claims in Pennsylvania and New York. Rob specializes in defending dental malpractice and long-term care liability cases. Rob also has extensive experience defending trucking and transportation companies in auto liability cases. Finally, he serves as an at-large board member for the Pennsylvania Defense Institute.  Patty Lafferty also has been a great addition to the healthcare department. Patty has 20 years of litigation experience, with approximately ten years focusing solely on the defense of health care providers. She represents physicians, nurses, advance practice providers, physician group hospitals, and skilled nursing facilities in medical malpractice cases throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania. Prior to joining us, Patty tried cases as a prosecutor in the Lackawanna County District Attorney’s Office. She tried multiple felony and misdemeanor cases. She was also an Assistant City Solicitor for the City of Scranton, working with the mayor, prior to joining Marshall Dennehey. Patty is an active member in the legal community, serving on the Board of Directors for the Lackawanna County Bar Association.  As outlined above, the Health Care Department has tried dozens and dozens of cases to verdict. Their experience and knowledge makes them the leading medical malpractice department in Northeastern Pennsylvania.  Scranton continues to be fortunate in that we have an experienced support staff that can be depended on to go well above and beyond their job classifications. We have several paralegals and administrative support staff who have been with us for 10-25 years. Their dedication to their jobs and the attorneys they work with is appreciated. Each and every one of them can be counted on to assist in any project or trial that may be on the horizon. They are willing and able to help when others are either out of the office or overworked. The teamwork and comradery amongst and between them is an asset to our firm.  The team of professionals assembled in the Scranton office provides outstanding legal services to all of the clients. Presently, our footprint in Pennsylvania consists of Tioga, Bradford, Susquehanna, Wayne, Lycoming, Sullivan, Wyoming, Montour, Columbia, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Pike, Monroe, and Carbon counties, as well as the Middle and Eastern Districts of Pennsylvania, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  All of the attorneys mentioned above live and, for the most part, grew up in the Northeast Pennsylvania area. Our knowledge of the courts, judges, and the procedures followed in each of the counties and federal courts around us allows this office to represent our clients in a professional and efficient manner, which the courts truly appreciate. Our attorneys are on a first-name basis with many of the judges we litigate before and their support staff. This allows us to represent our clients in a way that is unrivaled in the area. Also interesting is the differences in the counties in which we work. Most of the counties would be considered extremely conservative, but three of them are considered by our clients to be leaning liberal or extremely liberal. Having the knowledge to navigate these counties and courts goes a long way in providing the best advice and representation to our clients.  Our office’s experience and ability to handle a wide variety of cases at any stage of the litigation process—investigation, pretrial, discovery, trial, arbitration, mediation, settlement, or appeal—allows our clients to rest easy, knowing that they are getting excellent representation no matter the type of case or its procedural posture. The amount of work we receive in Northeastern Pennsylvania from our clients is greatly appreciated, and I believe is attributable to the fine work done by each of our attorneys, paralegals, and administrative staff. We are simply the best law firm (not just defense) in Northeast Pennsylvania.     Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2023, 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. © 2023 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

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Exclusion of Legal Malpractice Expert as Impermissible Net Opinion

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias obtained a favorable decision on behalf of their client in a case centering on the admissibility of expert testimony in legal malpractice actions. In Martin v. Loury, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the exclusion of a plaintiff's legal malpractice expert, holding that the expert's opinions on causation and damages were too speculative to support the malpractice claim. The legal malpractice action arose from an underlying employment dispute involving claims for damages stemming from the breach of an employment agreement. The plaintiff alleged that defense counsel committed malpractice during a second trial by failing to recall the plaintiff as a rebuttal witness after the employer's CEO testified. According to the plaintiff's expert, additional rebuttal testimony would have bolstered the plaintiff's damages claims and led to a more favorable result. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division rejected that theory. The courts found that the expert could not explain how the proposed rebuttal testimony would have altered the outcome of the underlying case or resulted in any additional recoverable damages. Notably, the trial judge in the underlying employment matter had already rejected the CEO's testimony as not credible and had accepted the damages analysis advanced by the plaintiff. The court had also determined that the amount of damages was not genuinely disputed. As a result, the expert's opinion that additional rebuttal testimony would have produced a better outcome was unsupported by the record and based on speculation rather than evidence. The Appellate Division agreed that neither the plaintiff nor the expert could identify any actual damages attributable to the alleged malpractice or demonstrate the required element of proximate causation. The court further upheld the trial court's application of New Jersey's net opinion doctrine, finding that the expert failed to provide the necessary "why and wherefore" supporting his conclusion that the attorney's conduct caused a compensable loss. Because the opinions rested on unquantified possibilities rather than demonstrable facts, they were inadmissible. Key Takeaway for Legal Malpractice Defendants For attorneys and firms defending legal malpractice claims, Martin v. Loury underscores the importance of closely scrutinizing an opponent's expert report on the critical elements of proximate causation and damages. The decision demonstrates that a malpractice claim cannot survive where an expert merely speculates that different litigation tactics might have produced a better result. Instead, the plaintiff must present admissible expert testimony grounded in the record that explains how the alleged attorney error probably changed the outcome of the underlying matter and resulted in measurable damages.

Thought Leadership

Court Allows Recklessness and Punitive Damages Claims to Proceed After Work‑Zone Crash

In a case where a defendant filed preliminary objections against allegations of recklessness and punitive damages, the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas denied these preliminary objections. This case stems from a motor vehicle accident, where the defendants car struck the plaintiffs car after the defendant allegedly fell asleep at the wheel, going at a high rate of speed, through a construction work zone. Defendant first objected to the general allegations throughout the plaintiff’s complaint pertaining to “reckless” conduct contending that there were insufficient factual allegations to support the claim of reckless conduct. Defendant next objected to the plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, as punitive damages may only be assessed against a motorist for falling asleep while driving if there is further evidence to prove driver was aware of their drowsiness and risk of falling asleep. Lastly, defendant objected to plaintiffs complaint, claiming it lacked specificity. The court here found that the plaintiff had included in the complaint specific allegations related to the defendant’s alleged recklessness, including allegations regarding speeding in a work zone, almost striking the flagger, falling asleep at the wheel, and striking the plaintiffs vehicle which was stopped. Additionally, the court noted that falling asleep does not come without warning. The court found that these allegations were sufficient to support an allegation of recklessness at the pleadings stage.

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

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Holds That Public Policy Does Not Prevent Insurance Coverage for Sex Trafficking Claims

On July 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an opinion emphasizing the limited circumstances in which courts may invoke public policy to bar insurance coverage, holding in Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (U.S. Branch) v. RI Settlement Trust that Pennsylvania public policy does not preclude coverage for claims alleging that insureds enabled or profited from human sex trafficking. The decision rejects a line of federal district court decisions predicting otherwise and reinforces that Pennsylvania courts will invoke the public policy doctrine only in the clearest of circumstances. RI Settlement is particularly significant because it arose on certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, giving the Supreme Court the opportunity to resolve an issue on which federal courts had predicted Pennsylvania law differently. RI Settlement arose out of four separate civil complaints in which the underlying plaintiffs alleged that, as minors, they were the victims of human sex trafficking at various hotels in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs claimed that the hotel owners were negligent in failing to stop the sex trafficking from happening at their hotels. After the filing of the lawsuits, the hotel owners sought coverage under their Commercial General Liability policies. The insurers initially defended the hotels under Reservation of Rights letters, though the carriers later filed Declaratory Judgment actions seeking declarations that they did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify. In short, the insurers argued in the alternative that they did not owe any obligation to provide coverage based upon Pennsylvania public policy (because the claims violated the Human Trafficking Law – 18 Pa.C.S. § 3011) and the terms and conditions of the policy. On motions for judgment on the pleadings, the District Court found for the insurers on the basis of public policy: There is no duty to defend or indemnify against actions arising out of an insured's criminal conduct related to the sex trafficking of minors. The Court appreciates that it may make public policy the basis of a judicial decision only in “the clearest of cases.” See Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 589 A.2d 854, 868 (Pa. 2004) (quoting Hall v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 648 A.2d 755, 760 (Pa. 1994)). Yet, the Court strains to imagine a clearer case than the one presented here in which the facts alleged indicate that Policyholders engaged in criminal conduct in violation of Pennsylvania's Human Trafficking Law. The hotel owners appealed the matter to the Third Circuit, which petitioned the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to grant review of two certified questions of law: (1) whether Pennsylvania law had an “overriding public policy” against sex trafficking, such that an insurer’s duty to defend and/or indemnify is abrogated when an insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from such trafficking; and (2) if yes, is that duty abrogated whenever the insured’s alleged conduct would constitute a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Trafficking statute. Importantly, the certified questions did not ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the policies afforded coverage under their terms. Rather, the court was asked only whether Pennsylvania public policy independently barred coverage. As a result, the court assumed for purposes of answering the certified questions that the insurers otherwise owed a duty to defend and addressed only the public policy issue, leaving all policy-based coverage defenses for further proceedings. Because the court concluded that the answer to the first certified question was “no”, it did not reach the second issue. In reaching its determination that Pennsylvania public policy does not prohibit insurance coverage for sex trafficking claims, the court limited the impact of its decision in Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 855 A. 2d 854, 855 (Pa. 2004), which the RI Settlement opinion emphasized as having been an “Opinion Announcing Judgment of the Court” – or a plurality opinion. In Greenfield, the insured homeowner was sued by the estate of his houseguest who overdosed from heroin that he sold to her. The matter wound its way to the Supreme Court, which determined that the insurer did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify based upon Pennsylvania public policy, which criminalized the sale and use of heroin as a Schedule I narcotic. In RI Settlement, the court “decline[d] the invitation” to extend the rationale of the three-justice plurality in Greenfield beyond cases involving Schedule I controlled substances. In so holding, the justices in RI Settlement refused to “divine an overriding public policy pronouncement by the General Assembly by virtue of its enactment of the Human Trafficking Law.” The opinion further states that it is not “within the purview of this Court to rank the magnitude of the public policy underlying the various crimes defined in the Crimes Code. It is sufficient for the work of the courts to know that the General Assembly has identified conduct it deems harmful and dangerous to the maintenance of an orderly society and criminalized it.” While the court declined to declare that Pennsylvania public policy prohibits coverage for sex trafficking claims, the opinion in RI Settlement expressly states that insurers are free to include appropriate exclusionary language for such causes of actions in their policies if they desire to do so. It will certainly be interesting to see whether the insurance industry accepts the court’s invitation, or perhaps whether the Pennsylvania legislature steps in to clarify that sex trafficking claims are indeed of the type or magnitude that they should not be covered by insurance. In any event, we will, of course, continue to monitor this and other insurance coverage issues that arise before courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and throughout our firm’s geographic footprint and around the country.