.

Kyle T. McGee

Portrait of Kyle T. McGee

Kyle is a member of the Professional Liability Department where he focuses his practice on civil rights and public entity litigation, professional liability, employment litigation and general liability/casualty litigation throughout Pennsylvania and West Virginia in both state and federal courts.

In his civil rights and public entity practice, Kyle is involved in the defense of police officers, municipal and government officials and public entities. Many of these claims allege police misconduct, such as claims of false arrest or excessive force, while other claims involve public entities and officials for constitutional claims, such as equal protection or due process, and other claims of misconduct and unlawful actions.

Kyle's professional liability practice involves the defense of engineers, architects, accountants, real estate agents, insurance agents and brokers, home inspectors and other professionals in a wide variety of legal claims. These matters require Kyle to work with individual professionals, firms, companies and agencies with respect to lawsuits, investigations and administrative claims.

As part of his employment practice, Kyle has represented both private and public employers and labor suppliers in employment-related disputes, including contract, harassment, retaliation, hostile work environment and discrimination claims. Kyle has experience representing employers in investigations, lawsuits and before administrative agencies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and West Virginia Human Rights Commission.

Kyle has also successfully investigated and litigated general liability matters, including casualty matters, product liability, sexual and physical assault and abuse, and commercial and business litigation.

Additionally, Kyle currently serves as General Counsel for several property insurance companies where he provides general legal advice and risk management, as well as ensures compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements. In this capacity, Kyle works closely with the management team and board of directors in addressing legal, regulatory and compliance matters.

Kyle is trained as a mediator and has served on the Pro Bono Mediator Task Force for the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

In 2004, Kyle obtained his Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science & Engineering from Bucknell University. He remains dedicated to his alma matter, having served on the Alumni Association Board of Directors since 2016 and currently serving as President of the Board. In 2007, Kyle obtained his juris doctor from the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University and has been engaged in the private practice of law ever since. 

    • Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University (J.D., 2007)
    • Bucknell University (B.S., 2004)
    • New Jersey, 2007
    • Pennsylvania, 2007
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2007
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 2007
    • West Virginia, 2009
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of West Virginia, 2009
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of West Virginia, 2009
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 4th Circuit, 2020
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2020
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2021
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 2022
    • Allegheny County Bar Association, 2007-present
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association, 2007-present
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute
    • West Virginia Bar Association, 2009-present
    • Mediation Training
    • Collaborative Law Practice Training
    • Pro Bono Mediator for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania's Pro Bono Mediation Program
    • Member of the Prisoner Pro Bono Counsel Program for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
    • Youth Soccer Coach, Peters Township Soccer Association
    • Defeated class certification in a case where the plaintiffs sought to certify a class of individuals alleging that the strip search policy at a local prison was unconstitutional.  After class certification was denied, we prepared and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. This motion was granted and the case was dismissed, with prejudice. 

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Ohio Supreme Court Holds That a Binding Appraisal Award May Not Be Set Aside Absent Specific Evidence of Manifest Mistake or Fraud

On July 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a rare opinion on the binding effect of an appraisal award in a property insurance policy.  The Court in One Church held: A binding appraisal award will not be set aside unless an error is so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—To plead a claim of mistake with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B), facts alleged in a complaint must constitute the elements of mistake—Allegation that additional, hidden damage was discovered after appraisal award failed to state a claim of mistake that could justify setting aside binding appraisal.  The case arose out of a claim brought by One Church against its insurer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company for roof damage from a storm. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the parties agreed to submit the matter to appraisal. The two appraisers inspected the building, and both appraisers agreed that the damages were $313,271.98. The insurer paid the agreed appraised amount.  Thereafter, the insured submitted a claim for an additional $206,663.09 in damages. The insured argued that these additional damages were not discovered until after the repairs began, and that they should be permitted to submit an additional claim, even though there had already been a binding appraisal of damages. The insurer refused to pay the additional damages, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  In the trial court, the insurer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the binding appraisal award barred any further claims. The insured took the position that additional hidden damages could not be discovered until after the repairs began, and therefore there was a mutual mistake. The trial court dismissed the case on the insurer’s motion, because there was no “evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake”. The Court of Appeals agreed that appraisal awards are generally binding, but noted that an appraisal award can be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the insured had pled mistake with sufficient particularity. The insurer appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court decision dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court found that since the insured had already demanded appraisal, and the appraisal award was binding, “something more than error of judgement, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake” must be pled with particularity, and proven for the insured to override the appraisal award. Since the complaint did not allege fraud or manifest mistake with sufficient particularity, something more than a mere error of judgment, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim.  The complaint in this case did not challenge the appraisal award. It pled that additional damages were discovered that were not apparent when the appraisal was done. It did not specify “who discovered the damages, how they were discovered, where they were found, why they were previously hidden, or why they rise to the level of a manifest mistake that the “appraiser would have corrected...had it been called to his attention”. Id at ¶22 citing Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases deciding the effect of appraisal awards are unusual. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in One Church relies primarily on 19th century case law for its conclusion. This emphasizes the fact that there is minimal case law deciding the effect of binding appraisal clauses in property insurance policies, and makes this case all the more significant. A lengthy dissent was written by Justice Fisher, who would have affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding the case for a decision on the merits. Of course, the decision works both ways, and an insurer dissatisfied with a binding appraisal award will likewise be without further recourse absent evidence of corruption, fraud, misfeasance, or manifest mistake, which must be pled with particularity. To constitute manifest mistake, “the mistake must be of such character that the arbitrator or appraiser would have corrected it had it been called to his attention.”  Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970).  The majority opinion does not specifically identify what would have been sufficient to plead mistake with particularity, or if the insured could have amended the complaint to overcome the deficiencies. The dissent argues that this was not really a case alleging mistake, but rather a question of contract interpretation. The insured did not challenge the appraisal, but argued that the hidden damage was not part of the appraisal, and the appraisal only covered the known damages.  However, this argument did not carry the day with the majority.  *Thomas F. Glassman, a shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s Cincinnati office, filed a brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, in support of the insurer’s position.

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.