.

Kevin M. McKeon

Shareholder

KMMckeon@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Kevin M. McKeon

Kevin has more than 40 years of experience representing manufacturers, corporations, and businesses in complex civil litigation, including product liability, product warranty, premises liability, and trucking and transportation matters. He regularly defends manufacturers and transportation-related businesses in high-exposure matters and has successfully obtained dismissals on behalf of defendants in product liability cases.

His product warranty practice includes defending claims brought under federal and state statutes, including the Pennsylvania and New Jersey lemon laws, as well as breach of warranty and consumer fraud acts. Kevin also represents defendants in premises liability actions.

Kevin has litigated matters for major manufacturers across a wide range of industries, including automobiles, trucks, boats, homes, and recreational vehicles and equipment. He has additional experience representing warranty and service contract companies, builders, and related businesses.

Kevin has tried more than 75 cases to jury verdicts, as well as numerous bench trials, and has experience handling class actions. He has also argued before appellate courts, including the New Jersey Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Kevin is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania and holds an AV® Preeminent™ rating from LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell.

    • Rutgers Law School (J.D., 1986)
    • Boston College (A.B., 1983)
    • New Jersey, 1986
    • Pennsylvania, 1986
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 1986
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1986
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 1996
    • Supreme Court of the United States, 2001
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2008
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
      The Martindale Hubbell rated attorney list is issued by Internet Brands, Inc. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
    • New Jersey Super Lawyer (2005)
      The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
    • Panelist, PBS television shows, Consumer Fraud Issues
    • Swarthmore's Who's Who
    • American Boat and Yacht Council
    • Camden County Bar Association
    • Defense Research Institute
    • Warranty Defense Counsel
    • Successfully obtained dismissal of all claims against their client in a personal injury action arising from a December 22, 2021 workplace accident. The plaintiff alleged that he sustained injuries while unloading pharmaceutical products from a tractor trailer. Although the lawsuit was timely filed against other defendants, plaintiffs' counsel did not name our client as a defendant until filing a Fourth Amended Complaint—more than two years after the applicable statute of limitations had expired. The court agreed that the plaintiff failed to exercise the due diligence required under New Jersey Rule 4:26-4 to identify the client as a defendant before the limitations period expired and granted the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e).
    • Malin v. Bayliner Corp., 148 F. 3d 1154 (3rd Cir. 1998), Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed trial court's dismissal of boat manufacturer after lengthy trial involving claims of breach of warranty, fraud, revocation of acceptance.
    • Palmucci v. Brunswick Corp., 311 N.J. Super. 607, 710 A. 2d 1045 (App. Div. 1998). Holding that manufacturers are entitled to at least one opportunity to cure an allegedly defective product prior to plaintiff filing suit.
    • Wanetick v. OCT Partnership, 318 N.J. Super. 156, 723 A. 2d 100 (App. Div. 1999). Holding that an ultimate outcome charge must be given to a jury in a consumer fraud case.
    • Suber v. Chrysler Corp., 104 F. 3d 578 (3rd Cir. 1997). Determining federal jurisdictional issues and stating that a manufacturer cannot be held liable for actions of a dealer absent an indicia of ownership of the dealer in a consumer fraud case.
    • Poli v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 349 N.J. Super. 169, 793 A. 2d 104 (App. Div. 2001). holding that there is a two-year statute of limitation in a lemon law claim, and addressing breach of warranty statute of limitation issues.
    • Wanetick v. Gateway Mitsubishi, 163 N.J. 484, 750 A. 2d 79 (2000). New Jersey Supreme Court ruling holding that an ultimate outcome charge must be given to a jury in a Consumer Fraud Act case; Model Jury Charges amended to reflect this ruling.
    • Ryan v. American Honda, 186 N.J. 431, 896 A. 2d 454 (2006). Holding that leases are covered in New Jersey under the federal Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.
    • Divigenze v. Chrysler Corp., 345 N.J. Super. 314, 785 A. 2d 37 (App. Div. 2001), cert. den. 171 N.J. 442, 794 A. 2d 181 (2002). Addressing plaintiff's burden of proof and jury instructions in a lemon law case.
    • Obtained complete summary judgments dismissing entire cases for multiple automobile manufacturers in numerous cases in New Jersey and Pennsylvania involving the Pennsylvania and New Jersey lemon laws, breach of warranty (Uniform Commercial Code), Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and consumer fraud statutes.
    • Had plaintiff dismiss product liability fire loss case against product manufacturer in claim for over $500,000 in property damage by proving through experts that client's product did not cause fire.
    • Had plaintiff dismiss products liability case against exercise equipment manufacturer in personal injury case by establishing that client's product did not cause the injury and injury either did not take place or was caused by the defendants.
    • Defense verdict in jury trial on behalf of boat manufacturer in product warranty case where plaintiff claimed a defect in a boat led to a boat sinking in Atlantic Ocean.
    • Obtained summary judgment relief for owner and driver of tow truck involved in multi-vehicle fatality crash. Our clients’ truck was struck from behind while towing another vehicle. The striking vehicle was a correctional facility transport van, which was transporting two inmates and two correctional officers. The impact caused injuries to both occupants of the tow truck and to all four occupants of the van, including fatal injuries to one of the inmates. Our clients were target defendants of the plaintiff correctional officer who was a passenger in the van, given the immunity provided to the Department of Corrections and its driver by the worker’s compensation bar.  At the conclusion of discovery, the Court accepted our motion based on the argument that a jury could not reasonably find our driver negligent despite the allegation that he had been driving too slow and despite the fact that he had received numerous citations for motor vehicle and towing violations. Our argument relied upon the uncontroverted expert opinions reached by the State Police’s accident investigator and our own accident reconstruction expert.
    • "Impaired Cognizance of Injury From Sexual Abuse May Not Trigger the Discovery Rule," Defense Digest, Vol. 6, No. 6, December 2000
    • "Strict Liability and Negligence Claims May be Barred in New Jersey Products Liability Cases Involving Damage to the Product," Defense Digest, 1998-02, Vol. 4, No. 1
    • "The Defense of Charitable Organizations Takes a Turn for the Better," Defense Digest, April 1995
    • Miranda v. MarineMax, 2013 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2419 (App. Div. 2013)
    • McGarvey v. Penske, 486 Fed. Appx. 276 (3rd Cir. 2012)
    • Washington v. Thiele Manuf., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66547 (D.N.J. 2012)
    • Patel v. American Honda Motor Co., 2011 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1146 (App. Div. 2011)
    • Ferrari v. American Honda Motor Co., 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 346 (App. Div. 2009)
    • Smith v. Cavalier Builders, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23457 (D.N.J. 2008)
    • Divigenze v. Chrysler Corp., 345 N.J. Super. 314, 785 A.2d 37 (cert. den. 171 N.J. 442, 794 A.2d 181 2002)
    • Wanetick v. Gateway Mitsubishi, et al, 163 N.J. 484, 750 A.2d 79 (2002)
    • Poli v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 349 N.J. Super. 169, 793 A.2d 104 (App. Div. 2001)
    • Wanetick v. OCT Partnership, 318 N.J. Super. 156, 723 A.2d 100 (App. Div. 1999)
    • Palmucci v. Brunswick Corporation, 311 N.J. Super. 607, 710 A.2d 1045 (App. Div. 1998)
    • Suber v. Chrysler Corporation, 104 F.3d 578 (3rd Cir. 1997)
    • Commercial Arbitrator - Camden County, New Jersey

Results

View all

Jury Defense Verdict Obtained in New Jersey Product Liability Case

We secured a jury defense verdict in the Superior Court of New Jersey in a product liability case where the demand was $650,000. The plaintiff alleged a defect in the handle of an ultraviolet light disinfecting device that caused her to develop trigger finger. They alleged a design defect and failure to warn claim, claiming permanent damage to her ring finger and hand as a result of surgeries to correct the injury.

Firm Highlights

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

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.

Thought Leadership

Fla. Workers' Comp Physician Dispensing Ruling Could Produce New Legislative Fight

In a significant decision issued on February 25, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (DCA) ruled in Publix Super Markets, Inc., et al. v. Department of Financial Services, et al., 430 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026), that while injured workers have an absolute right to choose their own pharmacy or pharmacist, that right does not extend to physicians who dispense medications directly to their patients.  Read Blake's article in Insurance Journal: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2026/08/05/880229.htm. 

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Thought Leadership

A Unified, Single Claim for Damages Requires Apportionment in a Joint Proposal: What the Decision in 'Trace Elements' Means for Property Insurance Claims

Kimberly and Seth, shareholders in the Insurance Services Practice in our Fort Lauderdale office, break down the Florida Supreme Court's decision in 'Trace Elements v. MacKensen' and what it means for property insurance claims in the state. Read the article here.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/