.

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

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

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.

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.