.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Shareholder Class and Special Counsel Promotions

December 15, 2025

Marshall Dennehey is pleased to announce that 16 attorneys have been elected shareholders of the firm effective Jan. 1, 2026. Additionally, two attorneys have been promoted from associate to special counsel. These new shareholders and special counsel represent the firm’s four core departments – Casualty, Professional Liability, Health Care and Workers’ Compensation – and come from 11 of the firm’s 19 offices. 

“We are delighted to welcome this outstanding class of newly elected shareholders,” said G. Mark Thompson, President & CEO of Marshall Dennehey. “Each of them has demonstrated exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership in advancing the interests of our clients and strengthening our firm. We look forward to the impact these individuals will make as leaders in our profession and contributors to our collective success.”

Promoted to Shareholder

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Holli K. Archer, Health Care Department (former Associate)
Holli defends health care practitioners, medical providers, and dental providers, against all manner of medical and dental malpractice suits. She also handles licensure matters before State Boards of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing. She is a member of the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations and is recognized as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star and a Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch. She is a graduate of the University of Scranton and Loyola University New Orleans School of Law. Holli is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania.

Jack A. Bennardo, Jr., Casualty Department (former Associate)
Jack primarily focuses his practice on construction injury and construction defect litigation, and trucking and transportation litigation. He provides legal counsel to construction companies and contractors, commercial property owners/managers, trucking companies, amusement parks and recreational facilities, and insurance companies in Pennsylvania. Jack also handles a wide array of serious loss cases where there is often catastrophic injury or death in the areas of premises liability, product liability, construction accident, construction defect, commercial trucking, insurance coverage, and sports, amusement and entertainment litigation. He is a graduate of Fordham University and Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New York. 

Julianne M. Curry, Casualty Department (former Special Counsel)
Julianne has over 20 years of experience representing clients in a wide variety of high-exposure trucking, motor vehicle, construction accident, premises liability and construction defect litigation. She frequently litigates multiparty matters and has served as a certified arbitrator for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. She is a graduate of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, and Rutgers Law School. Julianne is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania. 

KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Michael R. Duffy, Workers’ Compensation Department (former Associate)
Michael focuses his practice on defending employers and insurance carriers in matters related to workers’ compensation. He represents employers across numerous industries including trucking, construction, landscaping, manufacturing, hospitality and long-term care. Michael is a member of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Coalition, Brehon Law Society, Philadelphia Bar Association and Judge Alexander F. Barbieri Workers’ Compensation Inn of Court. He earned his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Pennsylvania State University and his juris doctor from Widener University Delaware Law School. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Robert A. Morton, IV, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Rob concentrates his practice in the areas of construction accident and construction defect litigation, premises liability, trucking and commercial motor carrier liability, and veterinary malpractice and licensure defense. He regularly provides legal counsel to developers, general contractors, subcontractors, and hotel operators, as well as trucking companies and a national bus company. He is a graduate of Saint Joseph’s University and Widener University School of Law and is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
Nicholas A. Cerimele, Health Care Department (former Associate)
Nicholas devotes the entirety of his practice to the defense of physicians, nurses, hospitals, physicians assistants and physician practice groups in professional liability litigation. He has more than 20 years of experience representing health care providers in medical malpractice cases. Nicholas is a graduate of Pennsylvania State University and the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania. 


MOUNT LAUREL, NEW JERSEY
Brielle K. Winkler, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Brielle provides legal counsel and representation in the areas of automobile liability, underinsured/uninsured motorists claims, premises liability and condominium/community association law. Her clients include small businesses, condominium associations, large public companies and insurance carriers. Brielle also handles personal injury matters related to auto liability on behalf of retail establishments, building owners, homeowners, drivers and businesses. She is a graduate of Towson University and Rutgers Law School, and she is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 

ROSELAND, NEW JERSEY
Nataliana A. Guida, Health Care Department (former Associate)
Nataliana (Talia) devotes her practice to medical malpractice litigation, defending the interests of physicians, dentists, nurses, hospitals, and other healthcare providers and institutions. Talia is also experienced in handling licensing and disciplinary board matters. She is a graduate of Quinnipiac University and New York Law School, and is admitted to practice in New Jersey. 

PURCHASE, NEW YORK
Sanford G. Jacobs, Casualty Department (former Special Counsel)
Sanford has over 30 years of experience in trucking and transportation liability, general liability, premises liability, motor vehicle liability, construction injury litigation, product liability and toxic torts. His extensive experience includes handling cases from inception through jury trial throughout the New York Metropolitan area, upstate New York and the state of Florida. He is a graduate of the State University of New York at Oneonta and Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School. He is admitted to practice in New York, the District of Columbia and Florida.

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA
Seth B. Altman, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Seth focuses his practice on representing and defending clients in insurance coverage and first-party property matters. Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Seth served as in-house counsel for two insurance companies where he litigated first-party property cases and was a member of the assignment of benefits and catastrophe (hurricane) divisions. Seth is also experienced in investigation, and he counseled and instructed his former claims departments in pre-suit matters. He is a graduate of the University of Florida and Albany Law School and is admitted to practice in Florida and New York. 

Holly M. Hamilton, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Holly focuses on a wide variety of professional liability litigation matters in state and federal court. A significant portion of her practice includes the defense of a variety of employment matters, including discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims from the administrative (i.e., EEOC) stage through litigation. Another significant part of her practice consists of director and officer disputes in not-for-profit condominium and other community associations. She is a graduate of Florida International University and the Maurice A. Dean School of Law at Hofstra University. Holly is admitted to practice in Florida, New Jersey and New York. 

Matthew J. Wildner, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Matthew focuses his practice on commercial litigation, construction defect litigation and a wide variety of professional liability litigation matters. Litigating in both state and federal courts, he defends design and construction professionals independently as well as through their insurance carriers in complex construction defect suits involving a variety of claims, such as building and design-related deficiencies, code violations, negligence, breach of contract and fraud, as well as insurance coverage claims under GL policies. Matthew additionally represents condominium associations, directors, officers, and property managers in matters involving breach of fiduciary duty, violations of governing documents, and construction and maintenance obligations. He is a graduate of the University of Florida and Stetson University College of Law and is admitted to practice in Florida. 

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
Kathleen A. Carlson, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Kathleen focuses her practice on automobile liability matters with an emphasis on uninsured/underinsured motorist claims. She also represents a wide array of clients in general liability matters. She is a graduate of the University of Florida and the University of Florida Levin College of Law. She is admitted to practice in Florida. 

Taylor A. Naughton, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Taylor focuses his practice on construction defect litigation, representing contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, developers and design professionals when claims are made against them. He routinely counsels clients in construction disputes, handling pre-suit investigations, multi-party claims, code violations, negligence and breach of contract claims. He is a graduate of Jacksonville University and Florida Coastal School of Law. Taylor is admitted to practice in Florida. 

ORLANDO
Carolin A. Pacheco, Professional Liability (former Associate)
Carolin defends insurance carriers in first-party insurance coverage claims and complex matters pertaining to coverage and bad faith claims. She also represents condominium association boards in directors and officers suits, as well as real estate agents, brokers, and appraisers in errors and omissions claims. She also litigates FDCPA claims and suits brought by debtors against the collection services assigned to recover the debt. Carolin is a graduate of the University of Central Florida and Stetson University College of Law. She is admitted to practice in Florida. 

TAMPA, FLORIDA
Sean P. Greenwalt, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Sean focuses his practice on amusement, sports, and recreation matters as well as fraud and personal injury protection (PIP) disputes. He litigates a variety of complex matters on behalf of corporations involving premises liability, commercial auto liability, catastrophic loss, wrongful death and commercial contract disputes. He also has experience defending first-party auto coverage suits and conducting examinations under oath. Sean is a member of the Florida Defense Lawyers Association and Claims Litigation Management Alliance. A graduate of Old Dominion University and Ave Maria School of Law, he is admitted to practice in Florida. 

Associates Promoted to Special Counsel

MELVILLE, NEW YORK
Ian L. Glick, Casualty Department
Ian handles cases from inception through resolution involving New York State Labor Law, construction accidents, premises liability, product liability, auto liability, general liability and subrogation claims. He is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin and St. John’s University School of Law. Ian is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey. 

Noriel L. Sta. Maria, M.D., Casualty Department
Noriel concentrates his practice in the areas of asbestos and toxic tort litigation. As both a physician and an attorney, he leverages his deep medical expertise to strengthen legal defenses, offering a distinct advantage in cases where medicine plays a critical role. Noriel is a graduate of the SUNY Downstate College of Medicine and obtained his juris doctor from Fordham University School of Law. He is admitted to practice in New York. 

2026 Shareholder Class

Firm Highlights

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.

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

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. 

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

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 Atty. William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Attys. Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.