.

Mark J. Kozlowski

Portrait of Mark J. Kozlowski

As a member of the Professional Liability Department, Mark focuses his practice on civil rights, constitutional law and municipal liability. 

Mark has represented a number of governmental agencies and municipalities over the years in matters ranging from police excessive force and wrongful arrest cases to premises liability lawsuits.  He represents public entities and officials in cases arising under state law, federal civil rights statutes and the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. He has also handled the defense of Homeowner Associations and officers in matters involving challenges to voting procedures, changes to short-term rental policies, employment discrimination and retaliation. 

In addition, Mark publishes the Marshall Dennehey Municipal Law newsletter. Mark has experience in the areas of zoning appeals, administrative proceedings, and trial court and appellate practice. He has handled civil rights litigation at the trial court and appellate levels, including experience practicing before the Supreme Court of the United States on multiple occasions. In 2021, Mark was elected Greenfield Township (Lackawanna County) Judge of Election. In 2023, Mark became a certified mediator on the mediator panel for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Mediation Program.

Mark received his juris doctor from Michigan State University College of Law in 2010. While in law school, he served as editor-in-chief of the Journal of International Law and as an associate editor of Res Ipsa Loquitor, the College of Law's newspaper. Mark was a member of the Student Bar Association and spoke on several panels at the National Conference of Law Reviews relating to successful management of law reviews, budget considerations and leadership. He also interned for the Lackawanna County District Attorney's Office.

Following law school, Mark served as a law clerk for the Honorable Edwin M. Kosik of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Following his clerkship, Mark began his private legal career with a general civil practice firm in Maryland.

Mark received his Bachelor of Science degree from Kutztown University of Pennsylvania in business administration and majored in marketing and business management. He also completed a minor in political science. While completing his undergraduate degree at Kutztown University, Mark served as president of the Recreational and Sports Club Council and spent four seasons as a defensive player with the lacrosse team.

    • Michigan State University College of Law (J.D., 2010)
    • Kutztown University of Pennsylvania (B.S., 2007)
    • Pennsylvania, 2010
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2010
    • Maryland, 2011
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2014
    • Supreme Court of the United States, 2018
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2019
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2019-2023)
    • Lackawanna County Bar Association, Young Lawyers Division, Board of Directors, 2016-2018
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Civil Rights and the 14th Amendment, Marywood University’s The Courts and Our Community Lecture Series, October 1, 2025
    • FLSA – Wage and Labor Laws, Northeast Pennsylvania Chapter of Society for Human Resource Management, June 29, 2023
    • Recruitment and Selection, Northeast Pennsylvania Chapter of Society for Human Resource Management, March 30, 2023
    • Employment Law Basics: The Basis of OSHA, FLSA, ADA & More, Northeast Pennsylvania Chapter of Society for Human Resource Management, November 17, 2022
    • Performance Management & Record Retention: Avoiding Discrimination - What is Needed to Make a Hire and be Fired, Northeast Pennsylvania Chapter of Society for Human Resource Management, August 18, 2022
    • Pay & Benefits: Overtime, Minimum Wage, Compensable Time & Legally Required Benefits, Northeast Pennsylvania Chapter of Society for Human Resource Management, May 19, 2022
    • Recruitment & Selection: Where to Find Talent & the Do’s/Dont’s of Interviewing, Northeast Pennsylvania Chapter of Society for Human Resource Management, February 17, 2022
    • Local Government Immunity in Pennsylvania, client seminar, June 8, 2021
    • Essential Handbook Must-Haves and Updates, National Business Institute, October 18, 2017
    • Workplace Behavior and Privacy Issues, Human Resource Law: What You Need to Know Now, National Business Institute, December 2016
    • Hiring/Recruiting, Human Resource Law: What You Need to Know Now, National Business Institute, December 2016
    • Employment Law: Rights, Benefits, and Emerging Issues, Sterling Education Services, August 2, 2016
    • Employment Law: Beyond the Basics, Sterling Education Services, August 4, 2015
    • Legal Updates for Pennsylvania Municipal Law, contributor and editor, September 2019-present
    • “Third Circuit Reaffirms Ripeness Doctrine in Civil Rights Claim and Need to Exhaust State Remedies Before Pursuing a Fifth Amendment Takings Claim,” Defense Digest, Vol. 23, No. 3, September 2017
    • "The Fire Protection Engineer Expert," Fire Protection Contractor, April 2012
    • United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, Certified Mediator

Results

Summary Judgment Affirmed by Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in Police Pursuit Case

We were affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of our client in a high-speed police pursuit case. The plaintiff was severely injured after a brief police pursuit involving the driver, who died as a result of the pursuit. The plaintiff then sued the local municipality for negligence, arguing that the officers caused the wreck by turning a traffic stop into a high-speed chase. Following discovery, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Township, finding that the so-called vehicle exception to municipal liability found in the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act did not apply. The trial court reasoned that pursuant to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding in Sellers v. The Township of Abington, 106 A. 3d 679 (Pa. 2014), the defendants did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care because his existence or connection to the driver were unknown to the officers at the time of the pursuit. The Commonwealth Court issued an opinion affirming the trial court and held that the exception to the exception for vehicle liability involving high-speed police pursuits did not apply because the plaintiff was unable to establish the threshold requirement that the defendants owed him a duty of care.

Defense Obtains Dismissal of a Complex Federal Civil Rights Action

We obtained the dismissal of a federal civil rights action alleging that a municipality retaliated against a real estate developer after the sale of a large tract of local property.

Firm Highlights

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. 

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.

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.