.

Matthew Gray is a member of the Casualty Department, with multiple years of experience focusing his practice on defending numerous insurance carriers in disputes involving New York Personal Injury Protection claims. Matthew is also a member of the Fraud/Special Investigation Practice Group, where he defends against intentional/staged losses, as well as medical provider fraud. He has experience conducting Examinations Under Oaths/Depositions. Matthew also has expansive experience with motion practice, declaratory judgments and trial preparation/management. Matthew has played a key role in establishing the SIU Dec Action team, guiding and collaborating with his colleagues in the drafting of several Declaratory Judgement (DJ) actions.

Matthew has experience with the litigation, mediation and arbitration of matters in multiple practice areas. Specifically, Matthew focuses on fraud investigation, primarily dealing with evaluating both medical provider fraud and intentional/staged losses. Matthew has had great success for his clients and has been often recognized for his successful in both the Court room, as well as in arbitration matters.

In addition to personal injury protection claims, Matthew handles insurance defense litigation for bodily injury cases. He defends premises liability and automobile liability suits, as well as first-party property damage matters.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Matthew began his practice in No-Fault at a boutique law firm, where he managed hundreds of PIP matters. Additionally, he developed experience litigating and arbitrating all aspects of insurance defense claims matters.

Matthew earned his juris doctor from the Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center in 2015. While at law school, he served as an ambassador and then, Secretary of the Student Bar Association, as well as President of the Columbian Lawyers' Association. He also was a competing member of Touro Law Center's Mock Trial Team. Matthew was named a Touro Public Interest Law Fellow in 2013 and 2014, respectively. Matthew earned a B.A. in English and a M.A. in English Literature, with a specialization in Dramatic Literature from St. John's University.

He is admitted in the state of New York.

    • Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (J.D., 2015)
    • St. John's University
      • M.A., 2012; B.A., magna cum laude, 2011
    • New York, 2015
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch©, Insurance Law (2026)
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2021-2026)
    • New York Metro Super Lawyers Rising Star (2023-2026)
    • Successfully defended, submitted post-hearing arguments and secured dismissal of a New York no-fault arbitration matter. The applicant, a major medical provider, filed an arbitration matter in the total amount of $361,601.62, claiming our client owed it for the claimant's unpaid medical bills following a major motor vehicle accident. The claimant had been involved in the motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment for a series of treatments rendered while hospitalized, post-accident. Counsel for the medical provider argued that the medical billing was never properly nor timely denied, therefore payment of the claims was overdue. However, We successfully argued at the arbitration hearing, that herein, Applicant’s client failed to provide the requisite statutorily required medical assignment of benefits form, assigned the hospital the right to sue on behalf of the injured party. After arguments were heard by the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator ordered post-hearing submissions to be submitted by both sides, to be submitted within the week. We researched, drafted and submitted said post-hearing submission, resulting in the Arbitrator ruling in our client’s favor, and thereby dismissing the matter based on the Applicant’s total failure to submit the requisite form, saving the client hundreds of thousands of dollars.  
    • Successfully secured full dismissal of a New York no-fault litigation matter. The plaintiff, a major medical provider, filed suit in Suffolk County's 3rd District Court in the total amount of $14,999.99, claiming our insurance company client owed it for the claimant's unpaid medical billing.  The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment. Counsel for the medical provider argued that, since the billing was never paid by the insurer, it was due in full—despite the same matter having been successfully argued and won in arbitration in June of 2021. However, after successful arguments and motion practice, and without significant opposition by plaintiff's counsel, the matter was dismissed, in full, by the court, which found that both res judicata and collateral estoppel applied. Therefore, the court found in full favor of our client and dismissed the suit and its accompanying complaint.
    • Successfully appealed, argued and obtained a full dismissal of joint arbitration matters filed against our client, when remanded to the lower arbitration forum. The applicant filed two, separate, yet related, arbitration matters claiming our client, an insurance carrier, owed them for unpaid medical bills of the claimant. The claimant was supposedly involved in a motor vehicle accident on July 25, 2018, and sought payment for medical treatment provided from December 20, 2018, through April 5, 2019. Applicant's position was that payment was owed as the independent medical examination that found a lack of medical necessity was improper and weak, and because the policy of insurance was not yet exhausted. At the lower forum, the applicant was successful due to the arbitrator's misapplication and misinterpretation of the NYS No-Fault Regulations. However, on Master Appeal the Master Arbitrator found in our clients favor after the submission of briefs and remanded the hearing to the lower forum for an evidentiary hearing before a different arbitrator. That arbitrator found in full favor of our client and denied the applicant's claims on both matters.
    • Successfully defended an arbitration matter filed against our client, an insurance carrier. The applicant filed an arbitration matter claiming our client owed him for the unpaid medical bills of the claimant, in the total amount of $20,772.99. The claimant was purportedly involved in a motor vehicle accident on August 12, 2016, and sought payment for medical treatments/surgery provided to the claimant on January 11, 2018. It was argued that our client owed the applicant's client for the medical services, despite New York state being the improper venue for hearing such a claim. The policy of insurance was written in Pennsylvania, the accident occurred in Pennsylvania, and the claimant lived in Pennsylvania. The provider of the medical services, the applicant, as well as the medical facility where the services were rendered were located in New Jersey. There was no apparent connection to the State of New York, other than the fact that the surgeon performing the surgery maintains an office there. The arbitrator agreed that this single contact with the was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the New York State No-Fault system to adjudicate these no-fault claims in the State of New York. As such, the arbitrator found in full favor of our client and denied the applicant's claims, in its entirety.
    • Successfully argued and obtained a full dismissal in an Arbitration matter filed against our client, an insurance carrier. A surgical center in New Jersey filed an arbitration matter in the amount of $217,370.39.15, claiming our client owed it for unpaid medical bills of the claimant. The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on July 15, 2017 and sought payment for medical treatment. The surgical center's position was that the entire amount was owed as it was not properly paid upon the initial submission of the billing to our client. However, after arguments were presented at the time of the arbitration hearing, our client’s policy of insurance was found to be completely and properly exhausted. Therefore, the Arbitrator found in full favor of our client, and denied the Applicant's entire $217,370.39.15 claim.

Results

View all

Successfully Fully Discontinued a New York No-Fault Action

We were successful in having a New York No-Fault (PIP) action fully discontinued, with prejudice. The plaintiff, a major medical provider, filed suit in Kings County Civil Court in the total amount of $25,805.85, claiming our client owed it for the claimant’s unpaid medical billing. The claimant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment. Counsel for the medical provider argued that, since the billing was never paid by the insurer, it was due in full—despite the fact that the same matter had previously been fully exhausted and was processed/handled in full compliance with the applicable medical fee schedule(s). While there were evidentiary issues in our client’s case, our arguments and position were strong. After negotiations and arguments, plaintiff’s counsel acquiesced to a full discontinuance of the matter, with prejudice.

Dismissal Obtained in a Medical Billings Claim Matter

We obtained full dismissal in a medical billings claim against our insurance carrier client in a New York No-Fault/PIP Action. The plaintiff, a major medical provider, filed suit in Kings County Civil Court in the total amount of $22,610.79, claiming our client owed it for the claimant’s unpaid medical billing. The claimant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment. Counsel for the medical provider argued that, since the billing was never paid by the insurer, it was due in full—despite the fact that the same matter had previously been fully exhausted and denied on similar grounds. While there were evidentiary issues in our client’s case, our arguments and position were strong. After negotiations, plaintiff’s counsel acquiesced to a full dismissal of the matter. Thereby, our client was absolved from any fiscal liability in this action.

Thought Leadership

View all

SIU Spotlight

The Wild West on the East Coast: How the Fix Known as “No-Fault” Turned New York Into the O.K. Corral

July 1, 2024

Howdy! Did y’all come to hear about the virtues and triumphs of New York State No-Fault? Well sit on down and warm yourself by the fire, while I tell you the story of how a new little law gave way to greed, corruption and the white knights, known as Defense Counsel! Introduced in 1974, New York State’s No-Fault insurance system, controlled under Regulation 68 or 11 NYCRR Part 65, otherwise known as “the Regs,” quickly became the foundation of how auto accidents were dealt with and how compensation was disturbed. The Regs were meant to provide quick and efficient coverage for medical expenses, lost wage, and other such claims for reimbursement post-auto accident: all without the need for drawn-out legal battles. However, over the decades since its inception, and with the many amendments to the Regs, multiple dusty trails for deceptive practices have been uncovered. Originally what was intended as a streamlined method to process claims and have parties taken care of has become a standoff of the highest order. No-Fault law was created with certain tenets in mind which aim for the swift processing of claims. Two such tenets are that (1) claims be processed with haste and (2) the parties involved work together, amicably. While the basic and establishing principle of No-Fault law was always to ensure that auto accident victims received timely compensation for medical bills, etc., those who have taken on the practice seem to break into one of two groups: the lawmen who try to protect the public (Defense Counsel) and the outlaws trying to disturb the peace (Plaintiff’s Counsel). While it may be true that those seeking medical treatment are oft seen and treated without haste or worry, the trouble starts when the bad eggs from the medical field roll into town, enlisting Plaintiff’s Counsel firms to perpetrate their nefarious plans. For every provider properly billing and treating patients, you will find a bad actor hiding in the herd, causing chaos and frustration throughout. One may ask themselves, “But, how can just a few bad actors affect an industry?” In the simplest of terms, any Defense Counsel worth their boot leather would say, “The premiums.” You see, it is our job to protect our clients’ interests. When our job is done well, we are able, as Defense Counsel, as lawmen, to keep the bad providers out of our town. By analyzing the cases we are assigned, and by recognizing the tell-tale signs of fraud and overbilling, we protect our clients from paying out claims they would not otherwise have to; thus, saving them in exposure. This is repaid to the good citizens of our settlement, to those who enlist the protection of the insurance carriers, by allowing them to have affordable premiums and, in turn, allows them to feel protected by the coverages they pay for. While No-Fault may have been started with good intentions, it has taken a handful of bad eggs, acting with greed in mind, to try and exploit the entire system. For as good as Defense Counsel may be, those who seek to defraud our clients are just as skillful. Our adversaries know how, and when, to file suit against the insurance carriers. They know in what venue and in what order to file their suits. They have adapted to the amendments in the Regs, learned each carrier’s style of doing business, and they know how, and when, to best overload each carrier. They know that they can file a case on the last day before the statute of limitations (six years from when the claim accrues) and still have many years before any court will take up the case. These methods cost the carriers hundreds of millions of dollars annually, resulting in higher premiums and a lower quality of medical care.  On one side, the bad-acting providers, seeking to force cases to trial, overburdening the carriers and courts with superfluous motion practice or, even as insidious, failing to respond to Defense Counsel’s requests to resolve the matter in a timely fashion. The other side, the Defense Counsel, tired, ever-fighting, working to make the town safe for those just seeking a better quality of auto insurance coverage. Effectively, we are locked in a daily standoff. However, it does feel like a victory whenever we can resolve a case. We close a case and get a little closer to what No-Fault is really about. Matthew is a member of the Fraud/Special Investigation Practice Group, where he defends against intentional/staged losses, as well as medical provider fraud. He has vast experience conducting Examinations Under Oath/Depositions.   SIU Spotlight, Issue 1, Vol. 1, July 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

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

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

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

Court Allows Recklessness and Punitive Damages Claims to Proceed After Work‑Zone Crash

In a case where a defendant filed preliminary objections against allegations of recklessness and punitive damages, the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas denied these preliminary objections. This case stems from a motor vehicle accident, where the defendants car struck the plaintiffs car after the defendant allegedly fell asleep at the wheel, going at a high rate of speed, through a construction work zone. Defendant first objected to the general allegations throughout the plaintiff’s complaint pertaining to “reckless” conduct contending that there were insufficient factual allegations to support the claim of reckless conduct. Defendant next objected to the plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, as punitive damages may only be assessed against a motorist for falling asleep while driving if there is further evidence to prove driver was aware of their drowsiness and risk of falling asleep. Lastly, defendant objected to plaintiffs complaint, claiming it lacked specificity. The court here found that the plaintiff had included in the complaint specific allegations related to the defendant’s alleged recklessness, including allegations regarding speeding in a work zone, almost striking the flagger, falling asleep at the wheel, and striking the plaintiffs vehicle which was stopped. Additionally, the court noted that falling asleep does not come without warning. The court found that these allegations were sufficient to support an allegation of recklessness at the pleadings stage.

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Exclusion of Legal Malpractice Expert as Impermissible Net Opinion

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias obtained a favorable decision on behalf of their client in a case centering on the admissibility of expert testimony in legal malpractice actions. In Martin v. Loury, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the exclusion of a plaintiff's legal malpractice expert, holding that the expert's opinions on causation and damages were too speculative to support the malpractice claim. The legal malpractice action arose from an underlying employment dispute involving claims for damages stemming from the breach of an employment agreement. The plaintiff alleged that defense counsel committed malpractice during a second trial by failing to recall the plaintiff as a rebuttal witness after the employer's CEO testified. According to the plaintiff's expert, additional rebuttal testimony would have bolstered the plaintiff's damages claims and led to a more favorable result. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division rejected that theory. The courts found that the expert could not explain how the proposed rebuttal testimony would have altered the outcome of the underlying case or resulted in any additional recoverable damages. Notably, the trial judge in the underlying employment matter had already rejected the CEO's testimony as not credible and had accepted the damages analysis advanced by the plaintiff. The court had also determined that the amount of damages was not genuinely disputed. As a result, the expert's opinion that additional rebuttal testimony would have produced a better outcome was unsupported by the record and based on speculation rather than evidence. The Appellate Division agreed that neither the plaintiff nor the expert could identify any actual damages attributable to the alleged malpractice or demonstrate the required element of proximate causation. The court further upheld the trial court's application of New Jersey's net opinion doctrine, finding that the expert failed to provide the necessary "why and wherefore" supporting his conclusion that the attorney's conduct caused a compensable loss. Because the opinions rested on unquantified possibilities rather than demonstrable facts, they were inadmissible. Key Takeaway for Legal Malpractice Defendants For attorneys and firms defending legal malpractice claims, Martin v. Loury underscores the importance of closely scrutinizing an opponent's expert report on the critical elements of proximate causation and damages. The decision demonstrates that a malpractice claim cannot survive where an expert merely speculates that different litigation tactics might have produced a better result. Instead, the plaintiff must present admissible expert testimony grounded in the record that explains how the alleged attorney error probably changed the outcome of the underlying matter and resulted in measurable damages.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

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

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Holds That Public Policy Does Not Prevent Insurance Coverage for Sex Trafficking Claims

On July 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an opinion emphasizing the limited circumstances in which courts may invoke public policy to bar insurance coverage, holding in Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (U.S. Branch) v. RI Settlement Trust that Pennsylvania public policy does not preclude coverage for claims alleging that insureds enabled or profited from human sex trafficking. The decision rejects a line of federal district court decisions predicting otherwise and reinforces that Pennsylvania courts will invoke the public policy doctrine only in the clearest of circumstances. RI Settlement is particularly significant because it arose on certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, giving the Supreme Court the opportunity to resolve an issue on which federal courts had predicted Pennsylvania law differently. RI Settlement arose out of four separate civil complaints in which the underlying plaintiffs alleged that, as minors, they were the victims of human sex trafficking at various hotels in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs claimed that the hotel owners were negligent in failing to stop the sex trafficking from happening at their hotels. After the filing of the lawsuits, the hotel owners sought coverage under their Commercial General Liability policies. The insurers initially defended the hotels under Reservation of Rights letters, though the carriers later filed Declaratory Judgment actions seeking declarations that they did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify. In short, the insurers argued in the alternative that they did not owe any obligation to provide coverage based upon Pennsylvania public policy (because the claims violated the Human Trafficking Law – 18 Pa.C.S. § 3011) and the terms and conditions of the policy. On motions for judgment on the pleadings, the District Court found for the insurers on the basis of public policy: There is no duty to defend or indemnify against actions arising out of an insured's criminal conduct related to the sex trafficking of minors. The Court appreciates that it may make public policy the basis of a judicial decision only in “the clearest of cases.” See Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 589 A.2d 854, 868 (Pa. 2004) (quoting Hall v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 648 A.2d 755, 760 (Pa. 1994)). Yet, the Court strains to imagine a clearer case than the one presented here in which the facts alleged indicate that Policyholders engaged in criminal conduct in violation of Pennsylvania's Human Trafficking Law. The hotel owners appealed the matter to the Third Circuit, which petitioned the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to grant review of two certified questions of law: (1) whether Pennsylvania law had an “overriding public policy” against sex trafficking, such that an insurer’s duty to defend and/or indemnify is abrogated when an insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from such trafficking; and (2) if yes, is that duty abrogated whenever the insured’s alleged conduct would constitute a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Trafficking statute. Importantly, the certified questions did not ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the policies afforded coverage under their terms. Rather, the court was asked only whether Pennsylvania public policy independently barred coverage. As a result, the court assumed for purposes of answering the certified questions that the insurers otherwise owed a duty to defend and addressed only the public policy issue, leaving all policy-based coverage defenses for further proceedings. Because the court concluded that the answer to the first certified question was “no”, it did not reach the second issue. In reaching its determination that Pennsylvania public policy does not prohibit insurance coverage for sex trafficking claims, the court limited the impact of its decision in Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 855 A. 2d 854, 855 (Pa. 2004), which the RI Settlement opinion emphasized as having been an “Opinion Announcing Judgment of the Court” – or a plurality opinion. In Greenfield, the insured homeowner was sued by the estate of his houseguest who overdosed from heroin that he sold to her. The matter wound its way to the Supreme Court, which determined that the insurer did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify based upon Pennsylvania public policy, which criminalized the sale and use of heroin as a Schedule I narcotic. In RI Settlement, the court “decline[d] the invitation” to extend the rationale of the three-justice plurality in Greenfield beyond cases involving Schedule I controlled substances. In so holding, the justices in RI Settlement refused to “divine an overriding public policy pronouncement by the General Assembly by virtue of its enactment of the Human Trafficking Law.” The opinion further states that it is not “within the purview of this Court to rank the magnitude of the public policy underlying the various crimes defined in the Crimes Code. It is sufficient for the work of the courts to know that the General Assembly has identified conduct it deems harmful and dangerous to the maintenance of an orderly society and criminalized it.” While the court declined to declare that Pennsylvania public policy prohibits coverage for sex trafficking claims, the opinion in RI Settlement expressly states that insurers are free to include appropriate exclusionary language for such causes of actions in their policies if they desire to do so. It will certainly be interesting to see whether the insurance industry accepts the court’s invitation, or perhaps whether the Pennsylvania legislature steps in to clarify that sex trafficking claims are indeed of the type or magnitude that they should not be covered by insurance. In any event, we will, of course, continue to monitor this and other insurance coverage issues that arise before courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and throughout our firm’s geographic footprint and around the country.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial