.

Joseph V. Lesinski

Co-Chair, Construction Injury Litigation Practice

JVLesinski@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Joseph V. Lesinski

Joe is a shareholder in the Casualty Department and concentrates his practice in the defense of companies and individuals in complex civil litigation matters. In this capacity, he has successfully handled numerous complex product liability, premises liability, auto liability, trucking and transportation liability, dram shop and construction accident cases involving property damage, serious personal injury and death throughout the state and federal courts of Pennsylvania. He routinely defends manufacturers, suppliers and retailers of electronics, industrial equipment, food products, farm equipment, sports equipment and others.  

A significant portion of Joe’s practice is dedicated to construction litigation. As co-chair of the Construction Injury Litigation Practice, he handles a wide range of construction injury and defect cases. These matters are complex and require a deep understanding of the construction industry. He represents contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, engineers, architects, and other construction professionals throughout Pennsylvania. Joe has handled a wide range of construction injury cases, representing contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, engineers, architects, and other construction professionals throughout Pennsylvania. His experience includes defending against personal injury claims arising from construction site accidents, such as falls from heights, scaffolding and ladder failures, equipment malfunctions, trench collapses, electrical injuries, and other workplace hazards inherent to the construction process.

Joe graduated from the University of Dayton in 2003 and earned his law degree from Saint Louis University School of Law in 2006.

    • Saint Louis University School of Law (J.D., 2006)
    • University of Dayton (B.A., 2003)
    • Pennsylvania, 2012
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 2014
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • Allegheny County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • The International Amusement & Leisure Defense Association (IALDA), Member

  • The Art of Mediation, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, May 5, 2026

    The Fundamentals of Premises Liability in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, May 5, 2026

    Health Club Claims, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, February 5, 2025

    Litigating Premises and Products Liability Cases – Key Issues Impacting Claims Analysis, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, May 21, 2024

    An Overview of Pennsylvania Law for Auto Law & Premises Claims, Marshall Dennehey Virtual Client Presentation, February, 2021

    An Overview of Commercial Auto Insurance in Pennsylvania & Ohio, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, January 26, 2021

    Jurisdictional Trends & The COVID-19 Impact on FL NY NJ & PA, Marshall Dennehey Virtual Client Presentation, December, 2020

    Vagaries of Product Liability Laws in the Post-Tincher Time Period, Client Seminar, May 2018

    Construction Defect Litigation: From A to Z, National Business Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, April 2015
     

    • "Does the Fair Share Act Apply to Faultless Plaintiffs? A Defense Position in the Wake of Spencer v. Johnson," CounterPoint, newsletter of the PA Defense Institute, December 2021.
    • Successful defense in $30 million product liability trial. Obtained major defense result for our client in a product liability lawsuit where the Plaintiff’s final pre-trial demand was $22 million and claimed exposure exceeded $30 million. The dispute arose after Plaintiff alleged compressor systems designed and sold by our client caused weld debris to migrate downstream, damaging filtration devices and allowing excess lubricating oil into a natural gas pipeline, which allegedly led to multimillion-dollar losses at a power plant. Through material testing and expert testimony, we established that the weld debris claim was unfounded and that Plaintiff’s own design decisions, inadequate maintenance, equipment failures, and poor system response were the more likely causes of the contamination. Based on this evidence, Plaintiff was unable to meet its burden of proof. Our client paid nothing to resolve the case despite the significant exposure.
    • Obtained a defense verdict in an automobile liability jury trial on behalf of an international oilfield services company and its employee.  The employee was operating a semi-trailer truck while hauling 40,000 pounds of drilling equipment.  The plaintiff alleged that she was rear-ended by the truck while attempting to merge onto the highway at a cloverleaf intersection.  The plaintiff's passenger vehicle was pushed off the highway and rolled multiple times. Through the testimony of an accident reconstruction expert, Joe effectively established that the plaintiff had come to a complete stop on the side of the highway while attempting to merge and had pulled out in front of the truck just seconds prior to impact, obtaining a maximum speed of only 25 mph. The jury returned a verdict finding the plaintiff at fault for the accident.
    • Secured an insignificant damage award in a premises liability jury trial involving a large daycare facility. Plaintiffs, the parents of a minor child at the time of the incident, argued that the daycare was negligent in failing to provide adequate supervision of their child. The child, who was 4 months old at the time of the incident, was bitten on the face by an older child while the care provider momentarily left the room to obtain a stroller.
    • Obtained Summary Judgment on behalf of a well head manufacturer in a products liability matter.  The plaintiff drill-operator alleged that the well head was defectively designed, causing oil and gas to escape during operation leading to a fire at the well site.  Plaintiff asserted economic losses in excess of $1,400,000.  Joe successfully argued that plaintiff failed elicit sufficient expert opinion to support the defect claim and further spoliated evidence in discarding the subject well head. 
    • Prevailed on preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer in favor of the mother of a mentally ill individual who went on shooting spree at a national behavioral health care provider.  The shooting incident resulted in one death and personal injuries to several others and received a great deal of media attention.  Plaintiffs claimed the shooters mother should be liable because she "took charge" of her adult son and voluntarily assumed a duty to control him.  Joe argued that the mother had no duty to control her adult son under Restatement (Second) of Torts Sections 319 and 324A.  In a 26-page opinion dismissing all claims against the mother, the judge held that "tort law does not impose a duty on a parent of an adult child to control the conduct of that child so as to prevent the child from causing physical harm to another." 
    • Obtained a defense verdict of behalf of the County of Beaver in a case involving an individual who was injured by fencing while playing softball. Joe effectively established the lack of any actionable defect.

Results

View all

Defense Verdict Obtained After Seven-Day Bench Trial

We received a defense decision after a seven-day bench trial in a product liability action in which the exposure in the case exceeded $30 million. Our client designs, sells and services engineered equipment for the energy industry, including natural gas compression apparatuses for use in transmission pipeline systems. In 2015, the client sold the plaintiff two reciprocating compressor systems to replace outdated equipment at a station located near Downingtown, PA. The compressor systems were designed to inject oil into the gas stream for piston lubrication. This lubricating oil needed to be removed from the gas stream using filtration devices supplied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed weld debris contained within certain vessels of the compressors migrated downstream upon commissioning and compromised several gas filtration devices. The plaintiff further contended the damaged filtration devices permitted excess lubricating oil into the pipeline, which fouled multiple turbines owned by its downstream customer at a large natural gas-fired power plant, causing significant economic losses. The applicable contract between the plaintiff and our client contained a forum selection clause requiring litigation to take place in Lake County, Indiana. The plaintiff claimed commercial losses of $18 million, plus attorney fees (per contract) in the neighborhood of $4 million. The plaintiff also maintained it was entitled to pre-judgment interest. If successful in establishing liability, this sum would have added another $5 million to $7 million to the damage award, depending on the interest rate employed by the court. Therefore, the pure exposure in the case exceeded $30 million. In response to the plaintiff’s claims, we successfully established that the weld debris incident was a red herring and did not damage the filtration equipment. Material testing of debris from within the filtration devices revealed very little weld debris compared to pipe scale and other naturally occurring components. Through key expert testimony, we established that the plaintiff could not meet its burden of proof because the oil contamination events may have been caused by several factors directly attributable to the plaintiff’s lack of design engineering, inadequate equipment maintenance, equipment failure and inappropriate response to system alarms.

Summary Judgment for Wellhead Manufacturer

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of a wellhead manufacturer in a product liability matter pending in Western Pennsylvania. The plaintiff drill operator alleged a wellhead was defectively designed, causing oil and gas to escape during operation, which led to a fire at the well site. The plaintiff asserted economic losses in excess of $1.4 million. We successfully argued that the plaintiff failed to elicit sufficient expert opinion to support the defect claim and also spoliated evidence in discarding the subject wellhead.

Thought Leadership

View all

Does the Fair Share Act Apply to Faultless Plaintiffs? A Defense Position In the Wake of Spencer v. Johnson

December 1, 2021

Last March, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an alarming decision for defendants related to the Pennsylvania Fair Share Act in the case of Spencer v. Johnson, 249 A.3d 529 (Pa. Super. 2021). While the implications from the decision have yet to be seen, some commentators argue the Court signaled a return to traditional joint and several liability in cases involving a plaintiff who is assessed no comparative fault.

Firm Highlights

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

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.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

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.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent