.

Matthew J. Noble

Assistant Office Managing Attorney

Portrait of Matthew J. Noble

Matt joined Marshall Dennehey as a member of the Casualty Department defending claims involving product liability and product warranty and motor vehicle liability. He currently represents a major American automobile manufacturer in their product liability litigation.

Matt also frequently represents national and local retailers, recreational facilities, third-party management and security agencies against personal injury, assault, allegations of false arrest, malicious prosecution, negligent security and general negligence cases. His representation has included a national security agency for professional sporting venues.

Matt has experience with the successful use of multiple experts in defending cases. For example, in a recent motor vehicle matter, through the use of medical expert testimony in the areas of orthopedics and neurology, in combination with the testimony of a vocational expert, Matt was successful in bringing the settlement demand in that case down from $1.25 million to a final settlement before jury selection of $25,000.

Matt is a 1992 graduate of the University of Scranton. Upon graduation, he accepted a commission as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps. He served in Virginia, California, Japan and Pennsylvania as a logistics officer. In 1999 while on active duty, he entered Rutgers School of Law - Camden. Matt graduated from Rutgers a semester early in 2002 with a juris doctor. In July 2003, he was mobilized with the Marine Corps for Operation Iraqi Freedom 2-II for eight months of service at Al Asad airbase in Iraq with Marine Wing Support Group 37 as the group's Logistics/Legal Officer.

In June 2020, Matt retired as a Lieutenant Colonel after 29 years of service in the United States Marine Corps and was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal.

    • Rutgers Law School (J.D., 2003)
    • University of Scranton (B.S., 1992)
    • Pennsylvania, 2003
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star (2012-2013)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • An Overview of Pennsylvania Law for Auto Law & Premises Claims, Marshall Dennehey Virtual Client Presentation, February, 2021
    • Understanding and Navigating the Philadelphia Arbitration System, CLE 2011
    • "Can A Plaintiff Safely Walk and Chew Gum At The Same Time in Pennsylvania?" Defense Digest, Vol. 19, No. 4, December 2013, co-author
    • "Cracking the Concrete Corporation Veil," Defense Digest, Winter 2007
    • "Stolen Cars: If It Looks Like A Duck And Quacks Like A Duck, It's An 'Ugly Duck'," Defense Digest, Winter 2005
    • "Look Both Ways Before Crossing The Street: Limited Tort Selection And Its Effect On The Pedestrian," Defense Digest, Fall 2003
    • Volunteer, Veterans Mentor, Bucks County Veterans Court, assisting vetrans in working towards successful resolutions of criminal charges so future contact with the criminal justice system can be avoided
    • Secured a defense verdict in Delaware County after a four-day jury trial in a premises liability case against a local school. The plaintiff, a student, suffered an Achilles heel injury when cut by a door edge and claimed diminished leg function and Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). Despite undergoing two surgeries, neither her surgeons nor treating physicians diagnosed CRPS. During trial, Matt highlighted that the student returned the following year as undefeated captain of the school’s tennis team, winning at the state level. The case involved aggressive cross-examination of medical and liability experts, along with surveillance evidence of the plaintiff. Before trial, the demand was $1 million, while the school offered $200,000 at mediation—an offer the plaintiff rejected, walking out and refusing further negotiations. After just 2.5 hours of deliberation, the jury ruled in the school’s favor.
    • Successfully defended our client, a global automobile manufacturer in a contract dispute in Bucks County, PA. In 2021, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff purchased a new vehicle for $37,000. Seven months later, the car was involved in a crash caused by the plaintiff's daughter. Repairs for collision damage, which are not covered under the vehicle’s express written warranty, were delayed due to global supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic. Despite the automobile manufacturer’s efforts to locate, obtain, and expedite delivery of repair parts to the collision repair shop, it took seven months to fully complete the repairs. The plaintiff alleged that the manufacturer violated the implied warranty of merchantability under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and breached the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, citing the repair delays as the basis for the claims. Ultimately, the court returned a defense verdict, rejecting the plaintiff’s claims.
    • A directed verdict for failure to prove negligence on behalf of a security company defendant at a professional sports stadium in an action brought by a patron who claimed to have her nose broken by the mother of one of the players.
    • A hung jury following a two-and-a-half day deliberation in a case against a defendant taxi driver in which plaintiff claimed the driver caused her neck and back strain after driving the wrong way up a one-way street, running a stop sign and into the side of plaintiff's car, but where defendant argued the alleged injuries were pre-existing.
    • A hospital defendant whose lost driver while making a u-turn was struck in the side by another driver with a passenger. In that case, the plaintiff passenger's case was dismissed before trial, and the driver plaintiff was awarded only nominal damages by a jury, even though it determined that plaintiff had pierced the limited tort threshold by showing that he had a serious injury with a serious impairment of a bodily function.

Results

Successful Trial Outcome: Defense Prevails in Premises Liability Case

We secured a defense verdict in Delaware County after a four-day jury trial in a premises liability case against a local school. The plaintiff, a student, suffered an Achilles heel injury when cut by a door edge and claimed diminished leg function and Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). Despite undergoing two surgeries, neither her surgeons nor treating physicians diagnosed CRPS. During trial, the defense highlighted that the student returned the following year as undefeated captain of the school’s tennis team, winning at the state level. The case involved aggressive cross-examination of medical and liability experts, along with surveillance evidence of the plaintiff. Before trial, the demand was $1 million, while the school offered $200,000 at mediation—an offer the plaintiff rejected, walking out and refusing further negotiations. After just 2.5 hours of deliberation, the jury ruled in the school’s favor.

Defense Prevails in Contract Dispute

Obtained a defense verdict for our client, a global automobile manufacturer, in a contract dispute in Bucks County, PA. In 2021, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff purchased a new vehicle for $37,000. Seven months later, the car was involved in a crash caused by the plaintiff's daughter. Repairs for collision damage, which are not covered under the vehicle’s express written warranty, were delayed due to global supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic. Despite the automobile manufacturer’s efforts to locate, obtain, and expedite delivery of repair parts to the collision repair shop, it took seven months to fully complete the repairs. The plaintiff alleged that the manufacturer violated the implied warranty of merchantability under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and breached the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, citing the repair delays as the basis for the claims. Ultimately, the court returned a defense verdict, rejecting the plaintiff’s claims.

Firm Highlights

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.