.

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

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

Thought Leadership

SIU Gets a Boost: NJ Supreme Court Affirms Insurers' Right to Litigate, Not Arbitrate, Fraud Claims

In a significant win for insurers' Special Investigation Units, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified that statutory insurance fraud and racketeering claims may proceed in court rather than through PIP arbitration. At issue was whether insurance fraud claims brought under New Jersey's Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA) and the state's Anti-Racketeering Act (NJ RICO) are subject to mandatory arbitration under the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act’s (AICRA) PIP dispute-resolution framework. Allstate had sued a network of medical practices, physicians, and related corporate entities, alleging a scheme to extract more than $1.7 million in PIP benefits through fraudulent and misleading billing. The trial court dismissed Allstate's complaint and compelled arbitration, reading AICRA's arbitration clause — which covers "any dispute regarding the recovery of... benefits" under PIP coverage, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1(a) — as sweeping in fraud and racketeering claims along with routine benefit disputes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal, adopting Judge Gilson's opinion below (480 N.J. Super. 566 (App. Div. 2025)) as its own reasoning. The Court held that IFPA and RICO claims fall outside the scope of AICRA's PIP arbitration mechanism because that "streamlined and specialized" process cannot grant the relief those statutes contemplate — treble damages, injunctive relief, broad discovery, and joinder of third parties — and because arbitrators lack authority to award compensatory or treble damages to an insurer. The Court also rejected the argument that Allstate's own Decision Point Review Plans independently compel arbitration, finding those plan provisions no broader than AICRA's own arbitration clause. Notably, the Court expressly disagreed with the Third Circuit's contrary holding in GEICO v. Mt. Prospect Chiropractic Center, 98 F.4th 463 (3d Cir. 2024), concluding it is not bound by that federal interpretation of New Jersey law. Insurers retain the right to pursue IFPA and RICO claims in the Law Division, with a jury trial. For SIU units and NJ insurance carriers, this decision is a significant win: it forecloses defense clinics' primary procedural tool for shunting fraud investigations into limited-scope PIP arbitration, where treble damages, RICO relief, and meaningful discovery were never realistically available. Carriers building cases against fraudulently structured clinics, straw-owned practices, or coordinated billing networks can now proceed with confidence that a well-pleaded IFPA/RICO complaint stays in the Law Division rather than being diverted to arbitration on a motion to compel. Practically, this strengthens SIU's leverage in settlement negotiations, preserves civil discovery tools (subpoenas, depositions, joinder of related corporate entities) critical to unwinding complex ownership and referral schemes, and resolves the split with the Third Circuit in favor of NJ insurers — at least as a matter of state law. Expect increased reliance on IFPA civil actions, rather than PIP arbitration demands, as SIU's primary enforcement vehicle going forward.

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

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. 

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

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.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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