.

Keith M. Andresen

Co-Chair, New York Construction & Labor Law

KMAndresen@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Keith M. Andresen

Keith is a shareholder in the Casualty Department and Co-Chair of the New York Construction & Labor Law practice. As an insurance defense litigator, he devotes his practice to premises liability, automobile liability and New York State Labor Law matters. He also has experience defending property damage and construction defect claims.

Keith also has experience assisting small businesses with proactive claim solutions. 

He graduated from Long Island University in 2003 with honors and earned his juris doctor from CUNY Law School in 2006 where he was a member of law review.

Outside of the office he enjoys spending his time with his wife and two children, watching the Mets and running.

    • City University of New York School of Law (J.D., 2006)
    • Long Island University (B.A., cum laude, 2002)
    • New York, 2007
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of New York
    • New York Metro Super Lawyer Rising Star, 2015-2017
    • New York State Bar Association

    • Secured a favorable decision from the Appellate Division, Second Department, in a premises liability action involving claims that two alleged trip-and-fall incidents exacerbated the plaintiff’s preexisting injuries. During discovery, the defense uncovered three undisclosed motor vehicle accidents that were potentially relevant to the plaintiff’s claimed injuries. After the trial court denied defendants’ motion to compel related records, Keith and Allison successfully appealed. The Appellate Division reversed and directed the plaintiff to provide authorizations for records relating to the undisclosed accidents for in camera review. The decision reinforces a defendant’s right to obtain discovery concerning prior and subsequent accidents when a plaintiff places the nature, extent, aggravation, or exacerbation of injuries at issue.

    • Successfully opposed the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action, resulting in the dismissal of all claims against our insured.​This motor vehicle accident on July 1, 2017. The plaintiff never properly effectuated service within the timeframe of CPLR 306-b, and the defendant moved to dismiss. The plaintiff then filed an order to show cause to vacate the dismissal. The defendant opposed this, and we substituted in for the defendant Vivek Soni. The court denied plaintiff’s order to show cause as the plaintiff did not show any reasonable excuse for failing to interpose opposition timely to the underlying motion. The prior order was not vacated, and the case was dismissed against our insured.

    • Successfully obtained dismissal of a premises liability action arising from an alleged sidewalk trip-and-fall after establishing that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. ​In this premises liability case, the plaintiff tripped and fell on the insured's sidewalk on July 18, 2021. However, the plaintiff missed the statute of limitations, and we filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211. After oral argument, our motion was granted, and the case was dismissed.
    • Successfully won a dismissal of a New York Labor Law case before the Supreme Court, New York County. ​Plaintiff's counsel withdrew from this case after potential fraud issues were raised by the defense. The plaintiff proceeded pro se and then did not appear at further court conferences. The judge later dismissed the case entirely. 
    • New York State Labor Law Primer, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, July 29, 2025

Results

View all

New York Labor Law Case Dismissed

We obtained summary judgment in New York County in a case where the plaintiff, a construction laborer, was struck by a rolling dumpster and sustained severe crush injuries to his left foot and leg. The plaintiff, the dumpster company and the subcontractors alleged our general contractor client was responsible for overall site safety. After obtaining billing and work records for the project, the client confirmed that it did not have any involvement in the project, and we moved for summary judgment. After oral argument, the court granted our motion in its entirety and dismissed the case and all cross-claims.

Thought Leadership

View all

Case Law Alerts

Labor Law § 241(6) Claim Fails as Court Finds Excavator‑Safety Provision Not Sufficiently Specific

July 20, 2026

In order to successfully invoke liability pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6), the plaintiff must plead and prove a violation of a specific conduct-regulating provision of the Industrial Code of the State of New York.  This statute imposes a non-delegable duty upon owners and contractors regardless of whether they exercise control. While the plaintiff does not have to prove actual negligence, they must show that a specific conduct-regulating provision of the Industrial Code was violated and that the violation constituted a departure from reasonable care and was a proximate cause of the accident. Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 503-55 (1993). In Mann v. Mezuyon, LLC, et al., 2026 WL 1462931, 2026 N.Y. Slip. Op. 03257 (Court of Appeals May 26, 2026), the plaintiff was struck by the boom of a nearby excavator and alleged a violation of Section 23-4.2(k) of the Industrial Code. This Section states: “[p]ersons shall not be suffered or permitted to work in any area where they may be struck or endangered by any excavation equipment or by any material being dislodged or falling from such equipment.” The Appellate Divisions were spilt as to whether section was sufficiently specific to support a 241(6) claim- the First, Third and Fourth Departments held it was not specific enough while the Second Department held otherwise. The Court of Appeals in Mann eliminated this split and held that the section is not specific enough. The court’s rationale was that the section did not provide any action to address the safety concern in the provision. This decision is significant because it eliminates Labor Law 241(6) liability based upon an alleged violation of Section 23-4.2(k) of the Industrial Code.

Case Law Alerts

Court of Appeals Narrows “Arising Out of Performance of Work” Standard

April 1, 2026

In Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc., (2025 N.Y. Slip Op 070077, December 18. 2025), the plaintiff-carpenter was injured while using an electrical subcontractor’s ladder at the worksite. The general contractor and owner sought contractual indemnification against the electrical subcontractor citing the “arising out of the performance of the work” provision within the contract. The electrical subcontractor moved to dismiss the contractual indemnification claims. The court of appeals found that the provision was not triggered due to the plaintiff’s unauthorized use of an unattended ladder instead of using the scaffold and ladder supplied by his co-worker. This seems to narrow the “arising out of work” trigger for contractual indemnity analysis. A subcontractor’s specific work and actions at any construction site must be scrutinized under this case in order to ascertain whether indemnity provisions are triggered.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Thought Leadership

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

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

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Thought Leadership

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

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

Thought Leadership

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

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

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department