.

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 (2024-2027)
    • 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

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.