.

Michael J. Sweeney

Shareholder

MJSweeney@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Michael J. Sweeney

Michael is a member of the firm's Fraud and Special Investigation Unit (SIU) group. His practice primarily involves staged motor vehicle collisions, fraud ring investigations, and medical provider fraud matters. Michael has litigated and filed affirmative litigation recovery actions in many states as his practice is national. In addition, he has taken Examinations Under Oath in private passenger auto, commercial and first party property matters throughout the country. Michael has extensive experience in handling insurance coverage disputes, SIU investigations, bad faith allegations, and general defense litigation.

Before joining Marshall Dennehey, Michael was litigation counsel for multiple insurance carriers including a Fortune 40 company and the largest automobile insurer in the United States. His areas of practice included representation of clients in both first and third party litigation involving premises liability, automobile negligence, insurance coverage, and personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. Michael also trained insurance claims representatives, presented seminars on litigation procedures, and was selected to work on a national process management initiative for 38 offices and over 1,200 employees.

In 2018, Michael earned the “Chartered Property and Casualty Underwriter” (CPCU) designation from the American Institute of Chartered Property and Casualty Underwriters. He is admitted to practice in the state of New Jersey.

Thought Leadership

View all

SIU Spotlight

Exposing the Scam: Fighting Staged Accident Fraud with Tech & Litigation

March 1, 2025

With increasingly sophisticated techniques, organized fraud rings target both commercial trucking fleets and private passenger vehicles in schemes designed to fabricate accidents and exploit the insurance claims process. These fraudulent activities have led to significant financial losses for insurance carriers and businesses, driving up premiums and creating unnecessary litigation. However, recent advancements in technology and legal strategies have given businesses and insurers powerful tools to combat these criminal enterprises. This article examines common fraud tactics involving fabricated motor vehicle losses, outlines key preventive measures, and explores proactive legal strategies that businesses and insurers can implement to mitigate risk and deter fraudulent claims. The Mechanics of Staged Accidents Staged automobile accidents follow a common set of patterns, often orchestrated by multiple vehicles acting in concert to create the illusion of a legitimate collision. These schemes typically include: Forced Merging Collisions: A fraudster vehicle double-parks or obstructs traffic, compelling the insured driver to maneuver around it. At that moment, another vehicle initiates a low-speed collision, making it appear as though the insured driver was at fault.  Sudden Braking Scenarios: A fraudulent actor abruptly stops in front of a truck, forcing a rear-end collision. In some cases, an accomplice vehicle blocks the truck from changing lanes, thereby preventing the driver from avoiding an impact with the claimant vehicle. Phantom Accidents: No actual collision occurs, but claimants submit fabricated police reports and medical documentation alleging significant injuries. In many such instances, an accomplice driver will pose as a “Good Samaritan” who slows in traffic in order to allow the claimant vehicle (with unrelated damages) to pull along side the target vehicle and allege that an accident has occurred.  Multiple Passenger Injury Claims: Fraudulent claims often involve multiple occupants in the claimant vehicle, each alleging injuries that require extensive (and often unnecessary) medical treatment, including surgeries, to inflate the value of their claims. Leveraging Technology to Prevent Fraud One of the most effective defenses against staged accidents is the strategic use of technology to document incidents and provide irrefutable evidence of their occurrence. Businesses and insurers should consider implementing the following: Front and Rear-facing Dashboard Cameras (dashcams): Dashcams capture real-time footage of roadway conditions, vehicle movements, and collisions. These devices have dropped dramatically in price in recent years and can provide indispensable video evidence which can immediately refute fraudulent claims by demonstrating how the alleged accident was intentionally caused. Event Data Recorders (EDRs): Also known as vehicle “black boxes,” EDRs track speed, braking, and other driving metrics. EDR data can be used to challenge fraudulent claims by showing that no impact occurred, that an incident was intentionally caused, or that the insured vehicle was not at fault.  Rapid-Response Investigations: In the aftermath of a suspicious accident, investigators should promptly collect available video evidence from nearby traffic cameras and businesses. Likewise, investigators should waste no time in performing background checks of the claimants, which can reveal patterns of prior fraudulent claims, potential connections to known fraud rings through usage of common telephone numbers and addresses, and past criminal convictions. Legal Strategies to Combat Fraudulent Claims While technology provides a strong deterrent against fraud, businesses and insurers must also adopt an assertive legal approach to prevent fraudulent claims from resulting in costly settlements. The following strategies can be particularly effective: Declaratory Judgment Actions: If evidence suggests that a claim is fraudulent, businesses and insurers should consider filing a declaratory judgment action seeking a court ruling that no liability exists. This preemptive legal maneuver places the burden on fraudsters to justify their claims and can prevent the case from escalating into protracted litigation.  Counterclaims for Fraud: When a lawsuit based on a fraudulent claim is filed, defendants should consider asserting counterclaims for fraud, misrepresentation, and conspiracy. A well-documented counterclaim can serve as a deterrent, signaling that fraudulent actors will face legal consequences rather than quick settlements.  Vigorous Litigation Defense: Fraudsters often rely on the assumption that insurers will settle rather than incur the costs of litigation. By aggressively defending against fraudulent claims and utilizing video and EDR evidence, businesses and insurers can shift this calculation. Where appropriate, defense counsel should seek early dismissal of claims based on fraudulent allegations and request sanctions against claimants who engage in bad-faith litigation. Conclusion Staged accidents and fraudulent insurance claims pose a substantial threat to insurance carriers, commercial enterprises, and private individuals. However, by leveraging advanced technology, conducting thorough investigations, and taking an aggressive legal approach, the insurance industry can effectively combat these criminal schemes. *Michael is a shareholder in our Mount Laurel, NJ office and a member of the Insurance Fraud/SIU Practice Group. (856) 675-3614 | MJSweeney@mdwcg.com    SIU Spotlight, Issue 2, Vol. 1, March 2025 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 © 2025 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 tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Beyond Bad Faith: Expanding Bad Faith Damages Fraud-Fighting

March 3, 2022

New Jersey joins national trend of states pushing the limits of bad-faith liability, with potentially devastating results.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida finds Evidence of Replacement Cost Value is Admissible and Recoverable Even When Repairs Have Not Been Made

The plaintiff filed a claim for damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. It claimed damages were over $24 million, but the carrier accepted partial coverage and paid $8,307.49 for secondary components. The carrier found hurricane damage to the building, but it was below the insurance policy’s $3.6 million deductible. The plaintiff sued for breach of the insurance policy. The carrier argued in a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff could not recover replacement cost value (RCV) because the property repairs had not been effectuated. The policy provided for RCV, but only after the repairs were completed. The carrier argued that because the repairs were not completed, the plaintiff was not entitled to RCV damages. The plaintiff argued the carrier could not withhold the actual cost value (ACV) due, which was the main allegation of the lawsuit, then fault it for not making the repairs to unlock the RCV. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected the carrier’s argument, finding that when an insurer allegedly breached the policy by withholding coverage, it could not hide behind a repair-contingent provision to block the insured from RCV damages at trial. The court found the issue to be whether the contractual language designed to preclude certain coverage until after repairs are completed barred an insured from seeking those damages at trial when repairs were not complete. The court noted the Eleventh Circuit had not resolved this issue and neither side pointed to a definitive answer from the Florida Supreme Court. The court reasoned that it must look to the Sixth District Court of Appeal (6th DCA), which is the court which would have heard this case if it was in state court. The court noted the 6th DCA recently addressed this issue in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 427 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026). The Rodriguez Court found that a breach of contract action is designed to adjudicate not only whether the contract was breached, but also evaluate the damages incurred had the breach not occurred, which the Rodriguez court found to be recovery of the RCV. This court also noted basic Florida contract principles compelled the same result, as a material breach frees the nonbreaching party to suspend its own performance and can demand the full benefit of its bargain, including RCV damages. Finally, the court found the distinction between a full denial and partial denial did not compel a different result. It found the policy required the carrier to acknowledge coverage and pay ACV for all covered damages, and the failure to do that is a material breach, entitling the insured to all of the damages available under the contract, which included the RCV.

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Thought Leadership

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees Due to Lack of Evidence to Support Fee Awarded

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding appellate fees to People’s Trust Insurance Company based upon a lack of evidence to support the attorney’s fee award in RM & Assocs. Consulting, Inc. v. People's Trust Ins. Co., 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 4654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). People’s Trust was the insurer of a residential property that had sustained water damage. RM & Associates Consulting was hired by the homeowner to perform mitigation services at the property. The homeowner assigned post-loss benefits to RM and RM subsequently filed suit against People’s Trust alleging that it had not been paid the money it was owed for the mitigation services. People’s Trust defended the lawsuit on the ground that the policy required the insured to notify the insurer before authorizing repairs so People's Trust could elect to use its preferred contractor. Because the owner did not comply with that provision, People's Trust asserted its liability was limited to the amount that its preferred contractor would have charged for the work, which People's Trust contended was $2,000. People's Trust paid that amount to RM before RM filed suit. People’s Trust filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. RM appealed the summary judgment ruling and the ruling was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate court also granted People’s Trust’s entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, subject to the trial court’s determination of the amount of fees, based upon an offer of judgment made by People's Trust. On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees People’s Trust was entitled to. At the hearing, People’s Trust presented testimony from it’s fee expert, supervising trial counsel and appellate counsel. People’s Trust sought recovery of $24,866.17 for work performed by appellate counsel. The request primarily consisted of work performed in preparation of the answer brief. The fee expert testified that more than ninety hours spent preparing the answer brief was reasonable given the complexity and significance of the underlying issue. The appellate court found that the fee expert’s testimony fell short of meeting the necessary standard of demonstrating that the hours expended were necessary. The appellate court found that the billing records did not serve to cure the deficient testimony, as the billing records did not contain adequate details regarding the specific tasks performed. Rather the records contained entries such as “answer brief” which the appellate court found to be insufficient. The appellate court noted that neither the fee expert or counsel addressed how the prior research and briefing in the parallel litigation informed the work in the instant matter. The appellate court noted this was significant in that a court's attorney's fees award must exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, citing Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based upon the record failing to support the finding of the trial court, the 4th DCA remanded the case to the trial court for a reconsideration and redetermination of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees supported by competent substantial evidence. The 4th DCA reiterated that the fee expert’s focus on the quality of the work and the importance of the work to People’s Trust did not make up for the perceived deficiencies in the position that spending over ninety hours on a single answer brief was reasonable. Whether moving for attorney’s fees or challenging the amount of fees being sought by an opposing party, practitioners should be mindful of the evidence being used to support the claims being made. Parties should pay close attention to whether the hours being sought may be impacted by prior litigation either party may have engaged in. A party must be prepared to address how prior litigation efforts did or did not impact the amount of hours being claimed in current litigation. Lastly, billing records must be sufficiently detailed so as to support any potential future fee claim.

Thought Leadership

First DCA Reverses Excessive Jury Award Unsupported by the Evidence

In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a claim with Universal for damages caused by a water and sewage back up through the plumbing system and existing through multiple fixtures including the washing machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub and toilet. Universal investigated the claim, issued payment for resulting water damage totaling $7,000.00 in actual cash value ($12,000.00 in replacement cost value). The plaintiffs sought additional benefits for work needed to access the below-slab cast iron plumbing system due to the failure of the system from rust, deterioration, corrosion and breaks in the line. Universal denied any additional benefits for access. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed suit. During litigation, Universal sent a plumber to inspect the home and the plumber concluded the pipes were clogged but could be cleaned. The plaintiffs’ plumber testified that the plumbing system needed to be replaced due to holes and openings in the pipes. The plaintiffs introduced two estimates prepared by Triad Restoration services totaling $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value and an executed contract with another company for repairs with the amounts of repair redacted. Since the insurance policy did not provide coverage for repair or replacement of the plumbing system, the jury only had to decide whether the plumbing system needed to be replaced, and if it did, Universal would owe for the access costs; the jury verdict form required the jury to determine both the replacement cost value and actual cash value amounts. The jury asked if it had to rely on the Triad estimates for their amounts. The trial court advised the amount awarded had to be based on the evidence presented at trial and the law given by the trial court. The jury awarded $335,000.00 in replacement cost value or $305,000.00 in actual cash value. Universal motioned for a new trial arguing the amount awarded was unsupported by the evidence and then moved for remittitur. The trial court denied both motions and this appeal followed. The court found that while a jury’s verdict should only be disturbed with caution and discretion, the trial court must give the properly challenged award close scrutiny and determine whether it bears a reasonable relation to the damaged provided, is supported by the evidence, and could have been reached in a logical manner by reasonable means §768.74(3), (5)(d)-(e), Fla. Stat. The court found the trial court did consider the statutory requirements at the hearing on Universal’s remittitur motion and was concerned about a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and injury suffered and whether the award was supported by the evidence, but ultimately denied the motion, reasoning that the jury had been properly instructed to fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs. The court noted the only evidence providing the basis for the jury verdict was Triad’s estimates and those valued the plaintiffs' claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value; no valuation evidence reasonably supported the jury verdict. The plaintiffs argued that the jury was entitled to consider more than the estimates, but the court conveyed the evidence provided did not give the jury a way to reach the amounts they awarded. The court was also not swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument regarding inflation and later price increases, but the court noted that no evidence via the contract, nor testimony regarding increase in labor, material, fuel or construction costs were entered into the record.  The court concluded the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but it may not supply a damages number by speculation. The court did not find any of the plaintiffs’ remaining argument persuasive either. The court reversed the denial of Universal’s remittitur motion and motion for new trial as to damaged and remanded the case. The court ended its opinion with advising the trial court must determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the property measure of damages under the policy and order remittitur in an amount consistent with that determination and the evidence.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department