.

Michael J. Bradford

Co-Chair, Maritime Litigation Practice

MJBradford@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Michael J. Bradford

Mike Bradford is a Board-Certified Civil Trial Lawyer. He has significant experience defending the nation's leading insurance companies and Fortune 500 corporations, having tried both bench and jury trials throughout Florida in state and federal court, and handled multiple arbitrations and appeals. Mike focuses his trial practice on the areas of insurance defense, insurance coverage, non-profit D&O, property and casualty, construction negligence, commercial litigation, and admiralty and maritime claims. Additionally, he defends organizations and their board members in directors and officers (D&O) liability matters, including claims involving mismanagement of funds, breach of fiduciary duty, employment practices, regulatory noncompliance, and other alleged wrongful acts.

Mike is rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest peer review rating for professional competence. He has also been selected by his peers to Florida Trend Magazine's Legal Elite "Up and Comers" and Civil Trial lists, and he has been selected a Florida Super Lawyer by the Super Lawyers organization. Michael is also a member of the Maritime Law Association of the United States (MLA), the Propeller Club (Port of Tampa), the Tampa Bay Mariners Club and a member of the Florida Bar Admiralty Committee.

Born and raised in the Tampa area, he served four years in the United States Army prior to attending college. Mike is active in his community and numerous professional organizations. He is a past member of the Board of Directors of the Hillsborough Head Start Community Foundation, a past member of the Board of Directors of Teaching Tools for Hillsborough Schools (formerly A Gift for Teaching of Tampa), and a former volunteer youth coach with the Tampa Metro Area YMCA and East Point Little League. Mike also served seven years as the Cubmaster for Cub Scout Pack 79, Brandon, Florida, Greater Tampa Bay Area Council, and now volunteers as an Assistant Scout Master for Troop 79, of which both of his sons are members.

    • Vanderbilt University Law School (J.D., 1999)
    • University of South Florida (B.A., cum laude, 1995)
    • Florida, 1999
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida, 1999
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit, 2001
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida, 2006
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida, 2006
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Admiralty and Maritime Law; Commercial Litigation; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2022-2026)
    • Florida Super Lawyers (2016-2025)
    • Florida Super Lawyers Rising Star (2009)
    • Florida Trend's Legal Elite - Civil Trial (2019, 2022)
    • Florida Trend’s Up & Coming Legal Elite
    • American Bar Association (Litigation and Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Sections)
    • Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM), Vice President, Western Florida Chapter
    • Defense Research Institute
    • Florida Bar Admiralty Law Committee, 2021
    • Florida Defense Lawyers Association
    • Hillsborough County Bar Association
    • Maritime Law Association of the United States
    • The Propeller Club - Port of Tampa
    • Southeastern Admiralty Law Institute
    • Tampa Bay Inn of Court
    • Tampa Bay Mariners Club
    • Here Comes the Boom: Cranes and Accidents, FDLA 26th Annual Florida Liability Claims Conference, Orlando, FL, June 15, 2023
    • Community Associations - Exposures Close to Home, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, September, 2020
    • Best Practices For Testifying Experts In Litigation, American Board of Vocational Experts (ABVE) Annual Conference, August, 2020
    • Crew | Longshore Harbors Workers’ Compensation Act | State Worker’s Comp Liabilities, Tampa Bay Mariner’s Club 2019 Annual Maritime Industry Marine Insurance Seminar, Tampa Bay, FL, May 22, 2019
    • Property Insurance Law Update, Ft. Lauderdale 10th Annual CE Seminar, Coral Springs, FL, March 2, 2018
    • “Where Does Florida End? It Depends,” Defense Digest, September 2018, Vol. 24, No. 3
    • Successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of our insurance carrier client in a  declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that plaintiff was entitled to defense and indemnity under the liability coverage afforded by his homeowner’s policy.  The Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his wife when she veered off the road and struck a pedestrian, nearly killing him.  The pedestrian sued Plaintiff for negligently failing to render aid and assistance because plaintiff allegedly observed the injured pedestrian’s condition, but left the scene without doing anything to help.  We argued there was no coverage in the first instance because the the insured’s conduct was not “accidental.”  In addition, we argued certain exclusions barred coverage, including an exclusion for bodily injury arising from the “use” of a motor vehicle, and exclusions for expected or intended injury and willful or malicious acts.  The court agreed and granted final judgment in favor of the Firm’s client.
    • Complete defense victory and successful counterclaim on behalf of a leading heavy civil marine contractor in the trial of a negligent construction claim brought against it after a subaqueous utility strike occurred during the construction of a bridge in Florida.
    • Complete defense verdict on behalf of one of Florida’s largest homeowners’ insurers in first party property damage sinkhole claim, believed to be first defense/insurer verdict in a denied sinkhole claim involving a policy that requires “structural damage,” since the Florida Sinkhole Statutes significantly changed in May 2011.
    • Defense jury verdict in a claim of damage to a home from nearby quarry blasting.
    • Defense jury verdict in a sinkhole trial in which the proper method of repair was disputed.
    • Defense verdicts in the trials of claims brought by two separate homeowners against their homeowners’ insurer as a result of damage allegedly caused by the explosion of a neighboring grow house.
    • Defense jury verdict in a sinkhole claim of improper partial denial and disputed method of repair.
    • Defense verdict in personal injury case involving a claim of multiple fractures and reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD).
    • Defense award in arbitration of customer securities claim involving allegations of churning and violations of Florida Blue Sky Law.
    • Defense judgment in a marine insurance coverage dispute tried in federal court.
    • Defense verdict in personal injury case involving rear end collision. The plaintiff was awarded past medical expenses, and no future damages. The judgment was less than the amount offered in settlement.
    • Commercial landlord/tenant dispute tried to conclusion. Settled on favorable terms to the client before a verdict was returned.
    • Favorable verdict in personal injury claim that a recreational vehicle fell on its owner, who was crawling under the RV, after improper maintenance of the RV’s hydraulic jacking system by the defendant.
    • Favorable final arbitration award in a customer securities fraud/unfair trade practices claim against a financial adviser and firm in connection with the sale of annuities.
    • Favorable final arbitration award in a case involving allegations of churning and breach of fiduciary duty in a customer’s account. Although a small award was made to the claimant, it was a fraction of the multi-million dollar claim asserted.
    • Favorable judgment after trial in a marine salvage case involving the salvage of a sinking yacht. A small judgment was entered in favor of the salvor, as expected, but it was far less than the amount claimed and less than was offered in settlement.
    • Successful appeal before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal in a trade dress infringement insurance coverage claim.
    • Board Certified Specialist, Civil Trial, The Florida Bar

Results

View all

Summary Judgment Obtained in an Auto Negligence Case Involving a Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing App

We secured summary judgment in an auto negligence case, in which we represented a car sharing app and an individual vehicle owner who rented our his car using the app. The plaintiff alleged that, under Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine, the app and the owner were vicariously liable for the renter of the vehicle, who allegedly struck the plaintiff’s vehicle. We successfully argued that the Graves Amendment preempts the application of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine and exempts our clients from vicarious liability for the alleged negligence of the driver.

Defense Prevails in Jury Trial on Underinsured Motorist Claim

We prevailed in a jury trial on a UM claim in Hillsborough County’s 13th Judicial Circuit. The plaintiff claimed he suffered permanent and debilitating injuries in a rear-end collision in Tampa, Florida. Liability was admitted, but the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries was in dispute. The plaintiff asked the jury to award him $500,000 for past and future damages.  The jury found there was no permanent injury and awarded $25,000 for past medical expenses only.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

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. 

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.