.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Shareholder Class and Special Counsel Promotions

December 15, 2025

Marshall Dennehey is pleased to announce that 16 attorneys have been elected shareholders of the firm effective Jan. 1, 2026. Additionally, two attorneys have been promoted from associate to special counsel. These new shareholders and special counsel represent the firm’s four core departments – Casualty, Professional Liability, Health Care and Workers’ Compensation – and come from 11 of the firm’s 19 offices. 

“We are delighted to welcome this outstanding class of newly elected shareholders,” said G. Mark Thompson, President & CEO of Marshall Dennehey. “Each of them has demonstrated exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership in advancing the interests of our clients and strengthening our firm. We look forward to the impact these individuals will make as leaders in our profession and contributors to our collective success.”

Promoted to Shareholder

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Holli K. Archer, Health Care Department (former Associate)
Holli defends health care practitioners, medical providers, and dental providers, against all manner of medical and dental malpractice suits. She also handles licensure matters before State Boards of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing. She is a member of the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations and is recognized as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star and a Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch. She is a graduate of the University of Scranton and Loyola University New Orleans School of Law. Holli is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania.

Jack A. Bennardo, Jr., Casualty Department (former Associate)
Jack primarily focuses his practice on construction injury and construction defect litigation, and trucking and transportation litigation. He provides legal counsel to construction companies and contractors, commercial property owners/managers, trucking companies, amusement parks and recreational facilities, and insurance companies in Pennsylvania. Jack also handles a wide array of serious loss cases where there is often catastrophic injury or death in the areas of premises liability, product liability, construction accident, construction defect, commercial trucking, insurance coverage, and sports, amusement and entertainment litigation. He is a graduate of Fordham University and Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New York. 

Julianne M. Curry, Casualty Department (former Special Counsel)
Julianne has over 20 years of experience representing clients in a wide variety of high-exposure trucking, motor vehicle, construction accident, premises liability and construction defect litigation. She frequently litigates multiparty matters and has served as a certified arbitrator for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. She is a graduate of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, and Rutgers Law School. Julianne is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania. 

KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Michael R. Duffy, Workers’ Compensation Department (former Associate)
Michael focuses his practice on defending employers and insurance carriers in matters related to workers’ compensation. He represents employers across numerous industries including trucking, construction, landscaping, manufacturing, hospitality and long-term care. Michael is a member of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Coalition, Brehon Law Society, Philadelphia Bar Association and Judge Alexander F. Barbieri Workers’ Compensation Inn of Court. He earned his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Pennsylvania State University and his juris doctor from Widener University Delaware Law School. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Robert A. Morton, IV, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Rob concentrates his practice in the areas of construction accident and construction defect litigation, premises liability, trucking and commercial motor carrier liability, and veterinary malpractice and licensure defense. He regularly provides legal counsel to developers, general contractors, subcontractors, and hotel operators, as well as trucking companies and a national bus company. He is a graduate of Saint Joseph’s University and Widener University School of Law and is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
Nicholas A. Cerimele, Health Care Department (former Associate)
Nicholas devotes the entirety of his practice to the defense of physicians, nurses, hospitals, physicians assistants and physician practice groups in professional liability litigation. He has more than 20 years of experience representing health care providers in medical malpractice cases. Nicholas is a graduate of Pennsylvania State University and the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania. 


MOUNT LAUREL, NEW JERSEY
Brielle K. Winkler, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Brielle provides legal counsel and representation in the areas of automobile liability, underinsured/uninsured motorists claims, premises liability and condominium/community association law. Her clients include small businesses, condominium associations, large public companies and insurance carriers. Brielle also handles personal injury matters related to auto liability on behalf of retail establishments, building owners, homeowners, drivers and businesses. She is a graduate of Towson University and Rutgers Law School, and she is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 

ROSELAND, NEW JERSEY
Nataliana A. Guida, Health Care Department (former Associate)
Nataliana (Talia) devotes her practice to medical malpractice litigation, defending the interests of physicians, dentists, nurses, hospitals, and other healthcare providers and institutions. Talia is also experienced in handling licensing and disciplinary board matters. She is a graduate of Quinnipiac University and New York Law School, and is admitted to practice in New Jersey. 

PURCHASE, NEW YORK
Sanford G. Jacobs, Casualty Department (former Special Counsel)
Sanford has over 30 years of experience in trucking and transportation liability, general liability, premises liability, motor vehicle liability, construction injury litigation, product liability and toxic torts. His extensive experience includes handling cases from inception through jury trial throughout the New York Metropolitan area, upstate New York and the state of Florida. He is a graduate of the State University of New York at Oneonta and Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School. He is admitted to practice in New York, the District of Columbia and Florida.

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA
Seth B. Altman, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Seth focuses his practice on representing and defending clients in insurance coverage and first-party property matters. Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Seth served as in-house counsel for two insurance companies where he litigated first-party property cases and was a member of the assignment of benefits and catastrophe (hurricane) divisions. Seth is also experienced in investigation, and he counseled and instructed his former claims departments in pre-suit matters. He is a graduate of the University of Florida and Albany Law School and is admitted to practice in Florida and New York. 

Holly M. Hamilton, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Holly focuses on a wide variety of professional liability litigation matters in state and federal court. A significant portion of her practice includes the defense of a variety of employment matters, including discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims from the administrative (i.e., EEOC) stage through litigation. Another significant part of her practice consists of director and officer disputes in not-for-profit condominium and other community associations. She is a graduate of Florida International University and the Maurice A. Dean School of Law at Hofstra University. Holly is admitted to practice in Florida, New Jersey and New York. 

Matthew J. Wildner, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Matthew focuses his practice on commercial litigation, construction defect litigation and a wide variety of professional liability litigation matters. Litigating in both state and federal courts, he defends design 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. Matthew additionally represents condominium associations, directors, officers, and property managers in matters involving breach of fiduciary duty, violations of governing documents, and construction and maintenance obligations. He is a graduate of the University of Florida and Stetson University College of Law and is admitted to practice in Florida. 

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
Kathleen A. Carlson, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Kathleen focuses her practice on automobile liability matters with an emphasis on uninsured/underinsured motorist claims. She also represents a wide array of clients in general liability matters. She is a graduate of the University of Florida and the University of Florida Levin College of Law. She is admitted to practice in Florida. 

Taylor A. Naughton, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Taylor focuses his practice on construction defect litigation, representing contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, developers and design professionals when claims are made against them. He routinely counsels clients in construction disputes, handling pre-suit investigations, multi-party claims, code violations, negligence and breach of contract claims. He is a graduate of Jacksonville University and Florida Coastal School of Law. Taylor is admitted to practice in Florida. 

ORLANDO
Carolin A. Pacheco, Professional Liability (former Associate)
Carolin defends insurance carriers in first-party insurance coverage claims and complex matters pertaining to coverage and bad faith claims. She also represents condominium association boards in directors and officers suits, as well as real estate agents, brokers, and appraisers in errors and omissions claims. She also litigates FDCPA claims and suits brought by debtors against the collection services assigned to recover the debt. Carolin is a graduate of the University of Central Florida and Stetson University College of Law. She is admitted to practice in Florida. 

TAMPA, FLORIDA
Sean P. Greenwalt, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Sean focuses his practice on amusement, sports, and recreation matters as well as fraud and personal injury protection (PIP) disputes. He litigates a variety of complex matters on behalf of corporations involving premises liability, commercial auto liability, catastrophic loss, wrongful death and commercial contract disputes. He also has experience defending first-party auto coverage suits and conducting examinations under oath. Sean is a member of the Florida Defense Lawyers Association and Claims Litigation Management Alliance. A graduate of Old Dominion University and Ave Maria School of Law, he is admitted to practice in Florida. 

Associates Promoted to Special Counsel

MELVILLE, NEW YORK
Ian L. Glick, Casualty Department
Ian handles cases from inception through resolution involving New York State Labor Law, construction accidents, premises liability, product liability, auto liability, general liability and subrogation claims. He is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin and St. John’s University School of Law. Ian is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey. 

Noriel L. Sta. Maria, M.D., Casualty Department
Noriel concentrates his practice in the areas of asbestos and toxic tort litigation. As both a physician and an attorney, he leverages his deep medical expertise to strengthen legal defenses, offering a distinct advantage in cases where medicine plays a critical role. Noriel is a graduate of the SUNY Downstate College of Medicine and obtained his juris doctor from Fordham University School of Law. He is admitted to practice in New York. 

2026 Shareholder Class

Firm Highlights

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.

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

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.

News

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

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

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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

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.

Result

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