.

Matthew J. Wildner

Shareholder

MJWildner@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Matthew J. Wildner

Matthew is an attorney in the Professional Liability Department, where he represents businesses, directors and officers, design professionals, contractors and homeowners associations in commercial, professional liability, construct defect, architectural, engineering, and employment disputes. 

Litigating in both state and federal court, Matthew devotes a significant portion of his practice to defending design professionals and construction professionals, independently as well as through their insurance carriers, in complex construction defect suits involving a variety of claims, such as building and design-related deficiencies, code violations, negligence, breach of contract and fraud, as well as insurance coverage claims under GL policies. 

Additionally, Matthew represents employers in litigation and provides advice and counsel concerning a variety of employment-related matters, including claims alleging discrimination, wrongful discharge, breach of contract and related tort claims.

Matthew graduated from the University of Florida in 2006, where he received his B.A.  He obtained his juris doctor in 2010 from Stetson University College of Law. Matthew is admitted to the Bar of the state of Florida. He is admitted to practice before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Court for the Southern, Middle and Northern Districts of Florida. Before moving into private practice, Matthew began his career at the Palm Beach County State Attorney's office, where he tried over 70 cases to verdict. Matthew also serves as an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve in the Judge Advocate General's Corps. He is a veteran of Operation Resolute Support, deploying to Afghanistan in 2016.

    • Stetson University College of Law (J.D., 2010)
    • University of Florida (B.A., 2006)
    • Florida, 2010
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit
    • Florida Bar Association
    • Represented General Contractor facing class-action lawsuit with damages claimed to exceed $1 billion. Consulted and managed multiple expert teams to defend against allegations that construction vibrations caused by the client and its subcontractors contributed to the collapse of an adjacent condominium. Representation contributed to amicable early settlement that allowed the insurer to quickly move and spared the client ongoing reputational damage.
    • Represented General Contractor of high-rise condominium complex against the owner/developer who alleged a multitude of construction defects. Drafted a MSJ that reduced scope of claim by close to $1 million and contributed to successful counterclaim. 
    • Represented subcontractor sued by Condominium HOA and General Contractor for subcontractor’s limited scope of work in case containing over 20 parties. Negotiated quick and minor payouts as to all claims which resulted in carrier saving close to $100k in attorney’s fees as opposed to protracted and costly litigation. 
    • Obtained summary judgment in favor of a south Florida municipality. The lawsuit was filed against the municipality by a member of the police department, who alleged unlawful termination due to his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis. The suit alleged a breach contract and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Family Medical Leave Act. The defense argued that the Plaintiff was not a qualified individual for the position of police officer because he could not perform the essential functions of his job with or without a reasonable accommodation, and that Plaintiff failed to state a claim on the Breach of Contract and title VII claims. The court agreed with the defense on both points and summary judgment was granted. This was a substantial victory for the municipality, the court ruling not only upheld the termination of an unqualified employee but also avoided a potential costly judgment against the Defendant. 

Thought Leadership

View all

Legal Updates for Real Estate E&O Liability

What To Expect for Real Estate E&O In The Florida 2026 Legislative Session

February 5, 2026

Florida’s 2026 legislative session opens with an unusually heavy real estate agenda. If enacted, proposed measures could reshape transactional practices and expand compliance-driven errors-and-omissions exposure. More than 100 pre-filed bills address real property issues, with a primary focus on ad valorem tax reform, expanded disclosure and inspection regulation, and land-use and association governance changes. While full elimination of property taxes is unlikely, multiple proposals contemplate exemptions or phase-outs for homesteaded properties, seniors, disabled veterans, and first-time homebuyers. These changes directly affect property valuation, affordability analyses, and buyer-facing representations, which are all common sources of E&O claims when tax assumptions or investment projections later prove inaccurate. Several proposed bills also carry direct operational and insurance implications for real estate professionals: Transaction and Inspection Regulation: HB 65 – Requires home inspectors to meet DBPR standards and carry E&O insurance SB 832 / HB 767 – Increased transparency in residential property insurance rate disclosures Zoning and Development: SB 48 / HB 313 – Mandatory local approval of accessory dwelling units SB 208 / HB 399 – Removal of zoning barriers to promote infill development HB 837 / SB 962 – Revised land-use definitions excluding farmland Association and Property Governance: HB 465 / SB 822 – Licensing and contract requirements for community association management firms SB 750 / HB 803 – Limits on municipal administrative fees for private inspections and plan reviews SB 606 / SB 608 / SB 610 – Expanded residential pool-safety requirements E&O Takeaway: The proposed 2026 legislation reflects a shift toward greater statutory regulation of real estate transactions, inspections, disclosures, and property governance. As regulatory requirements expand, liability risk increasingly arises from failure to recognize and implement new compliance obligations, miscommunication of zoning or tax impacts, and reliance on newly regulated third-party inspection services. Brokers, managers, and their E&O carriers should closely monitor enacted provisions and update transaction checklists, disclosure protocols, and client advisory practices accordingly. Legal Update for Real Estate E&O – February 2026, 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 © 2026 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 MEDeSatnick@mdwcg.com.

Case Law Alerts

Florida increases minimum wage.

April 1, 2022

On September 30, 2022, the minimum wage will increase to $11.00 per hour. This comes after Florida’s minimum wage increased to $10.00 per hour on September 30, 2021 ($6.98 for tipped employees). The state minimum wage will continue to increase $1 per year thereafter until it reaches $15.00 per hour ($11.98 for tipped employees). After which, it will be adjusted annually based on inflation. Section 448.109, Florida Statutes, requires employers who pay their employees the Florida minimum wage to post a minimum wage notice in a visible and accessible place in each establishment where these employees work. In addition to the Florida minimum wage notice, federal law requires employers to post a notice of the federal minimum wage. Florida’s minimum wage notice is available for downloading in English, Spanish, and Creole from the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity’s website at: http://www.floridajobs.org.   Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, April 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Thought Leadership

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.

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

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

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.

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

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

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.