.

Jonathon E. Cross

Co-Chair, Amusements, Sports & Recreation Liability Practice

Portrait of Jonathon E. Cross

Jon focuses his practice on a wide range of casualty matters, with particular emphasis on amusements, sports and recreation liability claims. As a former athlete, Division-I college baseball coach, and camp owner, Jon brings a unique and comprehensive perspective to representing and defending sports, amusement, and recreation facility owners, coaches, instructors, youth athletic organizations, professional athletes, educational institutions, and college fraternities against various claims. His extensive background enables him to effectively navigate the complexities of defending against claims within these educational institutions and organizations, including those involving specific sports such as football, soccer, basketball, ice hockey, baseball, lacrosse, and track and field. He also has extensive experience defending a wide range of recreational and entertainment facilities, including trampoline parks, water parks, roller skating centers, amusement parks, zip line adventure courses, rock climbing wall centers, go-kart tracks, bowling alleys, indoor sports centers, golf courses, aquatic clubs, camps, martial arts studios, white water rafting companies, concert venues, sports stadiums, resorts, liquor establishments, and more.

With the emergence of sports related concussion claims, Jon advises and represents school districts, colleges, youth leagues, trainers, referees and recreational parks in claims that arise from failure to recognize a concussion and the failure to follow return-to-play protocol.  Further, Jon handles the catastrophic injury related sports and recreation claims sustained by concussions, the second impact syndrome, drownings, and other serious bodily injuries.

Jon also serves as Marshall Dennehey’s representative on the Insurance Law Global Sports and Recreation committee, where he presents and authors articles on emerging sports litigation topics.

On the professional liability side, Jon provides legal counsel and representation to contractors, architects and engineers, accountants, attorneys, insurance brokers, real estate brokers and financial advisors in a wide range of matters including legal malpractice, accounting malpractice, wrongful use of civil process, abuse of process, negligence and breach of contract claims.

Outside of his law practice, Jon serves on the Executive Board of the Richie Ashburn Foundation, which raises funds to provide over 19 free baseball camps and clinics yearly to children throughout the Philadelphia and suburban area.  He works with the Foundation to raise funds to support blind and visually impaired children to play "beep" baseball. 

Jon coached four seasons of Division-I baseball at the University of Pennsylvania. Previously, he coached for nine years at Germantown Academy, where he also was a member of the Board of Trustees (eight years) and served as chair of the sports/athletic committee.  Jon additionally was a head baseball coach at the William Penn Charter School in Philadelphia, and he formerly operated his own winter and summer baseball camps.  

    • Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (J.D., 1996)
    • Lafayette College (B.A., 1993)
    • Pennsylvania, 1996
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2006-2008, 2010-2011)
    • Germantown Academy, Fort Washington, PA, Board of Trustees (1999-2007)
    • Germantown Academy, Fort Washington, PA, Sports Committee Chair (1999-2007)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Richie Ashburn-Harry Kalas Foundation, Executive Board Member (1998 - present)
    • Insurance Law Global - Sports and Recreation Committee, 2020- Present
    • International Amusement and Leisure Defense Association, Inc. (IALDA), Member
    • Sports and Entertainment Risk Management Alliance, (SERMA), Member
    • Information Gathering for New Claims and Prevention of Spoliation, 5th Annual ideal3 Summit, Minneapolis, MN, June 2026
    • Legal Roundtable, Amusement Industry Manufacturers and Suppliers (AIMS) Conference, Orlando, FL, January 15, 2026
    • Defensibility Strategies – Reduce Liability: Supervision & Documentation, International Adventure & Trampoline Park Association’s (IATP) Annual Conference, September 10, 2025
    • Litigation Basics - The Complaint, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, April 17, 2025
    • Legal Roundtable, Amusement Industry Manufacturers and Suppliers (AIMS) Conference, Orlando, FL, January 16, 2025
    • Health Club Claims, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, February 5, 2025
    • Florida Tort Reform, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, October 1, 2024
    • Concussion: Is the Long Ball Game Finally Finished? ILG 360º London Annual Conference 2023, March 15, 2023
    • Negligent Security Claims, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, January 25, 2023
    • Concussion in Sport - Causation and Risk Management in the Spotlight, Insurance Law Global Webinar, October 6, 2022
    • Concussion Litigation - It's Heading Your Way, Insurance Law Global Virtual Conference, March 26, 2021
    • From the NFL to Friday Night Lights...Tackling Concussion Litigation, Philadelphia Insurance Companies, October 4, 2017
    • The Present and Future of Concussion Litigation, Philadelphia Insurance Companies' Continuing Education Program, May 2017
    • Sports Tort Liability and Risk Management, University of Delaware, Sports & Facility Management Department, November 2016
    • What Insurance Professionals Should Know About Emerging Sports Liability Issues, A.M. Best Webinar, October 13, 2016
    • From the NFL to Friday Night Lights...Emerging Youth Sports Concussion Claims and Risk Management, Insurance Casualty Actuaries of New England, April 7, 2016
    • Athletic Risk Management and Concussion Litigation, University of Delaware, Sports & Facility Management Department, October 2015
    • Youth Sports Risk Management, New Jersey Recreation & Park Association's 2015 Annual Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, March 2015
    • Tackling Concussion Litigation, New Jersey Recreation & Park Association's 2015 Annual Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, March 2015
    • Youth Sports Risk Management, University of Delaware, Sports & Facility Management Department, March 2015
    • Tackling Concussion Litigation, University of Delaware, Sports & Facility Management Department, March 2015
    • Emerging Claims -- Youth Sports Concussion Litigation, Casualty Actuarial Society's Centennial Conference, New York, NY, December 2014
    • “‘No-duty’ Rule is Key to the Successful Defense of Sports Injury Lawsuits in Pennsylvania, U.S.A.”, The Sports Bulletin 3rd Edition, Insurance Law Global, August 2024
    • "Parents Are Precluded From Waiving Child's Rights to Jury Trial in Pennsylvania," The Sports Bulletin, 2nd Edition, January 2024, Insurance Law Global 
    • "Appellate decision in the Pennsylvania zipline case may permit general pleadings for recklessness and gross negligence, which may nullify the early effectiveness of the defense of waiver and release," The Sports Bulletin, 1st Edition 2023, Insurance Law Global, March 2023.
    • "Heads Up and Watch Out! Potential Liability for Traumatic Brain Injury Pursuant to the Safety in Youth Sports Act," Defense Digest, Vol. 23, No. 4, December 2017
    • "Boom! Lightning Liability at University Athletic Events," URMIA Journal, September 2015
    • “Fair Game? Legal Exposures Alter the Playing Field for Youth Sports,” Defense Digest, Vol. 21, No. 1, March 2015
    • "Cover All The Bases," Avoiding Youth Sports Injury Lawsuits, Camp Business Magazine, August 2014
    • "Fair Game? Legal Exposures Alter the Playing Field for Youth Sports," PropertyCasualty360.com, May 2014
    • "Court Recognizes Misconduct When Jurors Seek Out Their Own Expert Opinion," Defense Digest, Vol. 11, No. 2, June, 2005
    • "The Witness Immunity Doctrine Does Not Preclude Experts From Being Sued for Professional Malpractice," Professional Liability Underwriting Society, PLUS Journal, May 2000
    • "Obtaining Records With Fewer Headaches," (Co-Author), Defense Digest, Vol. 4, No. 6, 1998
    • "New Procedures Complicate Production of Documents By A Non-Party," Defense Digest, Vol. 3, No. 6, 1997
    • "Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules On Statute of Limitations For Defendants Who Leave The Commonwealth," Defense Digest, Vol. 3, No. 5, 1997
    • "Procedural Difficulties with New Discovery Rule",  MDWCG Legal Malpractice Handbook, October 1998
    • "Effect of Fiorantino on Legal Malpractice Claims for Breach of Contract", MDWCG Legal Malpractice Handbook, October 1998
    • "Legal Malpractice Defense that a Claim is Premature", MDWCG Legal Malpractice Handbook, 1999
    • "Continuous Representation Rule Still Not the Law in Pennsylvania", MDWCG Legal Malpractice Handbook, 1999
    • Success in defending trampoline parks in large loss lawsuits.
    • Success in defending indoor water parks. 
    • Success in defending indoor athletic recreation facility. 
    • Success in defending indoor rock-climbing facilities. 
    • Success in defending amusement parks.
    • Success in obtaining an defense verdict for major league baseball team and a former professional player.
    • Success in obtaining an order to dismiss a multi-million dollar gas station fire lawsuit.
    • Success in defending construction contractor for alleged OSHA violations. 
    • Success in defending a multi-million dollar lawsuit relating to defective fireworks.
    • Success in obtaining a dismissal of a lawsuit against a security guard company.
    • Success in handling multi-million dollar claims and obtaining favorable outcomes.
    • Success in obtaining a dismissal of a legal malpractice case pursuant to plaintiff's failure to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
    • Success in defending a golf club at trial for premises liability.
    • Success in litigating numerous cases involving school districts and universities involving claims for negligence, discrimination and athletic field liability.
    • Success in obtaining a jury verdict in favor of a major check cashing company.
    • Success in obtaining defense verdict in a wrongful use of civil proceedings claim.

Results

Summary Judgment Secured in a Case Involving a Trampoline Park Injury

We obtained summary judgment in a lawsuit arising from an injury suffered at an indoor trampoline park. During the deposition, the plaintiff admitted that there are inherent risks of engaging in trampoline activities, including the risk of being injured. Under the no-duty rule, a defendant owes no duty of care to warn, protect, or insure against risks which are common, frequent, expected and inherent in an activity. In the motion for summary judgment, it was argued that a trampoline park has no duty to protect patrons from the inherent risks of injury when jumping from a trampoline. The court opined that the no-duty rule was implicated and granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants.

Company Under Fire in Product Liability Suit Had No Duty to Install or Advise to Install New Valves

We were successful on a motion for summary judgment that was granted dismissing all claims against our client, an environmental compliance services and tank testing company, in a case where the plaintiff made an $8.75 million settlement demand. ​The plaintiffs, a minor mother and child, were at a gas station in Philadelphia when a vehicle inadvertently struck a fuel dispenser, knocking it over and causing a fire and explosion. The claims and cross-claims asserted against our client alleged it should have installed or advised the gas station owners to install a valve that would have prevented the fuel leakage that exacerbated the fire. We filed a summary judgment motion arguing that the claims and cross-claims asserted against our client went beyond the scope of the environmental compliance services it was hired to perform such that our client had no duty to either install or advise of installing different valves. The court granted our motion dismissing all claims and cross-claims against our client.

Thought Leadership

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

First DCA Reverses Excessive Jury Award Unsupported by the Evidence

In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a claim with Universal for damages caused by a water and sewage back up through the plumbing system and existing through multiple fixtures including the washing machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub and toilet. Universal investigated the claim, issued payment for resulting water damage totaling $7,000.00 in actual cash value ($12,000.00 in replacement cost value). The plaintiffs sought additional benefits for work needed to access the below-slab cast iron plumbing system due to the failure of the system from rust, deterioration, corrosion and breaks in the line. Universal denied any additional benefits for access. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed suit. During litigation, Universal sent a plumber to inspect the home and the plumber concluded the pipes were clogged but could be cleaned. The plaintiffs’ plumber testified that the plumbing system needed to be replaced due to holes and openings in the pipes. The plaintiffs introduced two estimates prepared by Triad Restoration services totaling $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value and an executed contract with another company for repairs with the amounts of repair redacted. Since the insurance policy did not provide coverage for repair or replacement of the plumbing system, the jury only had to decide whether the plumbing system needed to be replaced, and if it did, Universal would owe for the access costs; the jury verdict form required the jury to determine both the replacement cost value and actual cash value amounts. The jury asked if it had to rely on the Triad estimates for their amounts. The trial court advised the amount awarded had to be based on the evidence presented at trial and the law given by the trial court. The jury awarded $335,000.00 in replacement cost value or $305,000.00 in actual cash value. Universal motioned for a new trial arguing the amount awarded was unsupported by the evidence and then moved for remittitur. The trial court denied both motions and this appeal followed. The court found that while a jury’s verdict should only be disturbed with caution and discretion, the trial court must give the properly challenged award close scrutiny and determine whether it bears a reasonable relation to the damaged provided, is supported by the evidence, and could have been reached in a logical manner by reasonable means §768.74(3), (5)(d)-(e), Fla. Stat. The court found the trial court did consider the statutory requirements at the hearing on Universal’s remittitur motion and was concerned about a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and injury suffered and whether the award was supported by the evidence, but ultimately denied the motion, reasoning that the jury had been properly instructed to fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs. The court noted the only evidence providing the basis for the jury verdict was Triad’s estimates and those valued the plaintiffs' claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value; no valuation evidence reasonably supported the jury verdict. The plaintiffs argued that the jury was entitled to consider more than the estimates, but the court conveyed the evidence provided did not give the jury a way to reach the amounts they awarded. The court was also not swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument regarding inflation and later price increases, but the court noted that no evidence via the contract, nor testimony regarding increase in labor, material, fuel or construction costs were entered into the record.  The court concluded the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but it may not supply a damages number by speculation. The court did not find any of the plaintiffs’ remaining argument persuasive either. The court reversed the denial of Universal’s remittitur motion and motion for new trial as to damaged and remanded the case. The court ended its opinion with advising the trial court must determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the property measure of damages under the policy and order remittitur in an amount consistent with that determination and the evidence.

Thought Leadership

United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida finds Evidence of Replacement Cost Value is Admissible and Recoverable Even When Repairs Have Not Been Made

The plaintiff filed a claim for damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. It claimed damages were over $24 million, but the carrier accepted partial coverage and paid $8,307.49 for secondary components. The carrier found hurricane damage to the building, but it was below the insurance policy’s $3.6 million deductible. The plaintiff sued for breach of the insurance policy. The carrier argued in a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff could not recover replacement cost value (RCV) because the property repairs had not been effectuated. The policy provided for RCV, but only after the repairs were completed. The carrier argued that because the repairs were not completed, the plaintiff was not entitled to RCV damages. The plaintiff argued the carrier could not withhold the actual cost value (ACV) due, which was the main allegation of the lawsuit, then fault it for not making the repairs to unlock the RCV. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected the carrier’s argument, finding that when an insurer allegedly breached the policy by withholding coverage, it could not hide behind a repair-contingent provision to block the insured from RCV damages at trial. The court found the issue to be whether the contractual language designed to preclude certain coverage until after repairs are completed barred an insured from seeking those damages at trial when repairs were not complete. The court noted the Eleventh Circuit had not resolved this issue and neither side pointed to a definitive answer from the Florida Supreme Court. The court reasoned that it must look to the Sixth District Court of Appeal (6th DCA), which is the court which would have heard this case if it was in state court. The court noted the 6th DCA recently addressed this issue in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 427 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026). The Rodriguez Court found that a breach of contract action is designed to adjudicate not only whether the contract was breached, but also evaluate the damages incurred had the breach not occurred, which the Rodriguez court found to be recovery of the RCV. This court also noted basic Florida contract principles compelled the same result, as a material breach frees the nonbreaching party to suspend its own performance and can demand the full benefit of its bargain, including RCV damages. Finally, the court found the distinction between a full denial and partial denial did not compel a different result. It found the policy required the carrier to acknowledge coverage and pay ACV for all covered damages, and the failure to do that is a material breach, entitling the insured to all of the damages available under the contract, which included the RCV.

Thought Leadership

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees Due to Lack of Evidence to Support Fee Awarded

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding appellate fees to People’s Trust Insurance Company based upon a lack of evidence to support the attorney’s fee award in RM & Assocs. Consulting, Inc. v. People's Trust Ins. Co., 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 4654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). People’s Trust was the insurer of a residential property that had sustained water damage. RM & Associates Consulting was hired by the homeowner to perform mitigation services at the property. The homeowner assigned post-loss benefits to RM and RM subsequently filed suit against People’s Trust alleging that it had not been paid the money it was owed for the mitigation services. People’s Trust defended the lawsuit on the ground that the policy required the insured to notify the insurer before authorizing repairs so People's Trust could elect to use its preferred contractor. Because the owner did not comply with that provision, People's Trust asserted its liability was limited to the amount that its preferred contractor would have charged for the work, which People's Trust contended was $2,000. People's Trust paid that amount to RM before RM filed suit. People’s Trust filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. RM appealed the summary judgment ruling and the ruling was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate court also granted People’s Trust’s entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, subject to the trial court’s determination of the amount of fees, based upon an offer of judgment made by People's Trust. On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees People’s Trust was entitled to. At the hearing, People’s Trust presented testimony from it’s fee expert, supervising trial counsel and appellate counsel. People’s Trust sought recovery of $24,866.17 for work performed by appellate counsel. The request primarily consisted of work performed in preparation of the answer brief. The fee expert testified that more than ninety hours spent preparing the answer brief was reasonable given the complexity and significance of the underlying issue. The appellate court found that the fee expert’s testimony fell short of meeting the necessary standard of demonstrating that the hours expended were necessary. The appellate court found that the billing records did not serve to cure the deficient testimony, as the billing records did not contain adequate details regarding the specific tasks performed. Rather the records contained entries such as “answer brief” which the appellate court found to be insufficient. The appellate court noted that neither the fee expert or counsel addressed how the prior research and briefing in the parallel litigation informed the work in the instant matter. The appellate court noted this was significant in that a court's attorney's fees award must exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, citing Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based upon the record failing to support the finding of the trial court, the 4th DCA remanded the case to the trial court for a reconsideration and redetermination of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees supported by competent substantial evidence. The 4th DCA reiterated that the fee expert’s focus on the quality of the work and the importance of the work to People’s Trust did not make up for the perceived deficiencies in the position that spending over ninety hours on a single answer brief was reasonable. Whether moving for attorney’s fees or challenging the amount of fees being sought by an opposing party, practitioners should be mindful of the evidence being used to support the claims being made. Parties should pay close attention to whether the hours being sought may be impacted by prior litigation either party may have engaged in. A party must be prepared to address how prior litigation efforts did or did not impact the amount of hours being claimed in current litigation. Lastly, billing records must be sufficiently detailed so as to support any potential future fee claim.