.

Michael G. Archibald

Shareholder

MGArchibald@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Michael G. Archibald

Michael is a shareholder in the firm's Casualty Department where he represents some of the nation's largest insurance carriers and their insureds in a wide variety of product liability, premises liability, motor vehicle negligence and contract disputes. A former public defender and Marine, he brings his "hard-charging" work ethic to every engagement, whether he's assisting clients in evaluating claims made against them or defending them at trial.

With more than 20 years of experience, Michael handles all phases of litigation, from pre-suit negotiations to the courtroom, when necessary. He has successfully represented clients in routine and complex litigation involving uninsured/underinsured motorist claims, personal injury slip-and-fall matters, property damage cases, product liability matters, negligent security, and wrongful death cases.

    • University of Florida Levin College of Law (J.D., 1998)
    • Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
      • B.S., B.C.J., magna cum laude, 1995
    • Florida, 1999
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida, 2003
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida, 2003
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida, 2003
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit, 2004
    • Defense verdict in lawsuit filed against a major, nationally recognized retail chain alleging both intentional torts and negligence. Client was entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs based on issuance of Proposal for Settlement/Offer of Judgment.
    • Favorable verdict in motor vehicle accident trial in which client admitted negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle. Verdict was favorable in that jury awarded far less than what client had previously offered plaintiff at mediation.
    • Dismissal of premises liability case after deposition of third party plaintiff. Upon careful interrogation of claimant, it was revealed during the deposition that the documents offered in support of the claim were not what they were purported to be.
    • Apartment complex owner defense: An invitee fell down a flight of concrete steps breaking bones and incurring substantial medical bills. She brought suit against the apartment complex to recover her damages. Witnesses that came to the plaintiff's aid immediately after the fall inspected the stairs and found nothing that would have caused the fall. Additionally, during her deposition testimony the plaintiff was unclear as to what she believed caused her to fall. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted, with the defendant entitled to recover fees and costs. 
    • Retailer subrogation defense: Plaintiff insurer alleged that defective installation of a dryer caused a fire that destroyed an entire floor of an apartment complex. After paying its insured based on its contract of insurance, the insurer then filed a subrogation suit against the retail merchant. The jury returned a defense verdict  in favor of the retail merchant.  Defendant entitled to recover costs. 
    • Apartment complex owner negligent security/wrongful death defense: A 21-year-old apartment complex tenant was shot and killed during the night while in the playground area of the apartment complex. The assailant was never identified and the crime remained unsolved. He was survived by his parents and 3-year-old daughter. Lawyers for the estate made a demand in the amount of $9,000,000.00. The jury found the defendant liable for not having any security measures in place but also found the decedent to be 68 percent liable for his own death. The jury award to the estate was $333,000.00. The estate's appeal was unsuccessful. 
    • Insurance company uninsured/under-insured motorists defense: Plaintiff filed an under-insured motorists claim against his insurer based on auto accident. He had already received the policy limits from the other driver's insurance policy and sought to benefit from his UM policy. The jury agreed that the accident in question was the plaintiff's fault and rendered a defense verdict in favor of the plaintiff's insurance company.
    • Grocer defense: Plaintiff filed suit alleging that he slipped and fell in liquid that was left unattended on defendant's floor. The plaintiff had multi-level lower back surgery.  Plaintiff's key witness was a friend who was less than credible. Under cross-examination the plaintiff's and his key witness's stories diverged. The jury found in favor of the defendant. Defendant entitled to recover fees and costs.
    • Corporate defendant in rear-end auto accident: Corporate defendant fleet vehicle approached intersection wherein the traffic light was red for his lane. The fleet vehicle was second in line. The light turned green. The plaintiff  who was in the vehicle just ahead of the corporate defendant's vehicle began to go and then abruptly stopped. The fleet vehicle rear-ended the plaintiff's vehicle. In the 2 years to follow, the plaintiff had three surgeries (TMJ, knee and shoulder) all allegedly due to the rear end collision.  Defendant stipulated to liability and challenged causation. Defense verdict with defendant entitled to recover fees and costs due to offer of judgment. 
    • Retail merchant slip and fall: Plaintiff alleged that the floor was wet with liquid which caused her to slip and fall incurring an injury requiring surgery. Her key witness was her adult son who was with her when the alleged incident occurred. Despite giving deposition testimony favorable to his mother's case, at trial on cross-examination he admitted that when he inspected the floor immediately after the alleged fall, he saw nothing that would have caused her to fall. Defense verdict with defendant entitled to recover fees and costs. 
    • Retail merchant defense: Plaintiff alleged that his 2-year-old child suffered a fractured femur while inside defendant's store. The child's leg was broken due to heavy unsecured merchandise falling on his leg when he disturbed it. The jury found plaintiff/child's father 65 percent negligent for his lack of supervision of the child. Defendant entitled to recover fees based on offer of judgment. 
    • Liquor merchant slip and fall: Plaintiff patron enters liquor store out of the rain. She walked across the entire wet parking lot into the store and slipped and fell as she went to make a turn down an aisle. Defendant stipulated to the absence of a wet floor sign – jury found 65 percent negligence on plaintiff; appeal by plaintiff unsuccessful.
    • Car dealership defense/auto accident: Defendant auto dealer's employee took a newly  purchased vehicle across the street to get the tank filled for the new owner. On his way back from the gas station, the employee attempted to make a right turn on a one-way street. He did not see the plaintiff riding a bicycle on the sidewalk coming from the opposite direction of the traffic on the one-way street. 70% liability attributed to the bicycle riding plaintiff. Defendant entitled to recover fees based on offer of judgment. 
    • Retail Merchant Assault and Battery, Invasion of Privacy, Defamation: Plaintiff alleged that her privacy was invaded by defendant's employee when the employee physically assaulted her and strewn her lingerie across the parking lot of its business.  Plaintiff claimed that the employee used racial epithets against her in the course of the physical and very public assault.  Defense verdict.  Defendant entitled to fees and costs.
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (2024-2026)
    • Florida Bar Association
    • Hillsborough County Bar Association
    • National Bar Association
    • Using Crime Grids in Negligent Security Claims, Marshall Dennehey Florida Claims Symposium - The Best Defense is a Good Offense, Orlando, FL, September 17, 2014
    • “Negligent Security Claims In Florida: the “Victim-Targeted” Defense,” Defense Digest, Vol. 23, No. 1, March 2017
    • "Florida's Proposals for Settlement in Dangerous Instrumentality Cases," Defense Digest, Vol. 16, No. 2, June 2010
    • United States Marine Corps, 1987-1991

News

View all

Firm Highlights

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.

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

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. 

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

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Result

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

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.

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.