.

Michael L. Detweiler

Portrait of Michael L. Detweiler

Michael is a shareholder and member of the Casualty Department and the Managing Attorney of the King of Prussia office.  In his 20 plus years of practice experience, Michael has successfully defended clients including but not limited to retail and large corporations, construction companies and contractors, homeowner associations (HOAs), municipalities, tour operators and travel agencies, professionals, and various individuals.   He has represented his clients in high exposure personal injury matters involving fatalities and other catastrophic injuries.  He has also successfully defended entities and individuals in high exposure construction defect matters, in addition to commercial and breach of contract disputes. He has tried cases to verdict in courts throughout Pennsylvania, including the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Michael serves also as the Casualty Supervisor of the King of Prussia office in addition to his role as managing attorney, providing oversight for strategy considerations and daily operations within the King of Prussia Casualty group and office, generally.  His extensive experience with both casualty and professional liability matters provides an invaluable advantage in representing clients who require a firm grasp of both practice backgrounds.  

Michael graduated magna cum laude from Dickinson College in 1998 and from Boston College Law School in 2002.  Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Michael was Assistant City Solicitor with the City of Philadelphia Law Department for two years. He defended police officers, corrections officers, and various City of Philadelphia employees and agencies in civil lawsuits.  He is an active member of the local community, which includes his work as President and Chairman of the Board of a Philadelphia elementary school from 2014-2025.  

    • Boston College Law School (J.D., 2002)
    • Dickinson College (B.A., magna cum laude, 1998)
    • New Jersey, 2003
    • Pennsylvania, 2003
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2003
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Construction Law (2026)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star (2007-2008, 2010-2016)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Board Member, Saint Mary Interparochial School
    • An Overview of Auto Law in Pennsylvania, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, July 22, 2025
    • Travel Advisors E&O Insurance: Lessons in Liability - Panelist, Travel Professional News webinar, September 12, 2023
    • PHL Airport First Responders Training, Philadelphia International Airport, Philadelphia, PA, March 30, 2023
    • Defending Planned Community Association Cases: Directors and Officers Liability, Property, and Other Liability Issues, Engle Martin & Associates, March 2016
    • Legal Issues for Internet Travel Sellers and Travel Insurance for Industry and Consumers, Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI) Travel Law Seminar, Philadelphia, May 1, 2014
    • Insurance Agents and Brokers Best Claims Practices in Claims Administration and Underwriting, Liberty Mutual Insurance, December 2013
    • “Movement No Longer Required: Expansion of the “Operation of Motor Vehicle” Exception in Municipal Cases Since Balentine,” Defense Digest, Vol. 25, No. 2, June 2019
    • "When Accidents Happen: Legal Defenses for Travel Advisors," Travel Advisor, February 2019
    • "Top Legal Considerations for Independent Contractors," Travel Agent magazine, September 2014
    • "The Motor Vehicle Black Box," Dispute Resolution Institute: Annual Personal Injury Potpourri 2007, Co-Authored with Ralph P. Bocchino, Esq. 
    • Successfully drafted and argued Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on behalf of international tour operator in a federal court case in which plaintiff (a 35 year old man) drowned while on a fishing excursion near the coast of Costa Rica.  (The fishing excursion was booked through the tour operator).  The underlying motion was predicated on applicable tour operator liability law, maritime law, and the Death on the High Seas Act. 
    • Successfully drafted Motion to Dismiss on jurisdictional grounds on behalf of internationally renowned California golf resort that was sued by plaintiff for severe head and cognitive injuries.
    • Obtained voluntary dismissal of all claims as to tour operator sued by plaintiff for personal injuries as a result of alleged injuries stemming from an accident in a resort in Jamaica.
    • Obtained voluntary dismissal of all breach of contract claims as to local non-profit financial institution in a breach of contract civil action involving close to $1 million in disputed monies.
    • Obtained numerous defense verdicts as lead trial counsel on behalf of clients in federal court in which plaintiff alleged false arrest, excessive force, and other civil rights violations.
    • Obtained multiple summary judgments on behalf of clients in general casualty and products liability matters.

Results

Successful Trial Result Achieved in a Philadelphia Premises Liability Matter

We received a successful trial result in a premises liability matter in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff’s expert projected future surgeries and extensive life-long medical care costs of $1.25 million. Much of our defense centered on damages and demonstrating that the projected future medical care was not supported by the actual medical treatment provided. Additionally, video of the incident was used to demonstrate that the plaintiff had actual/constructive knowledge of spilled water in the premises but proceeded to walk in that area anyway. Forty percent comparative negligence was assigned to the plaintiff, and despite the plaintiff’s introduction of the medical cost projection described above, only $50,000 in future medical care was awarded by the jury. The total award, after a molded verdict, was $118,800, which our client viewed as a victory in this venue. 

Real estate agency dismissed from litigation.

The defense prevailed on a motion to dismiss our real estate agency client. The plaintiff filed counts of fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, conspiracy, conversion, invasion of privacy-false light, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel against the agency regarding an allegedly fraudulent transfer of a private residence by the co-defendant seller of the property. We filed preliminary objections, arguing that the plaintiff's claims lacked sufficient specificity and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court dismissed all claims against our client. 

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…King of Prussia Office: A Historic Legacy and a Dynamic Future of Legal Excellence

December 1, 2025

Situated in the shadow of Valley Forge and the rich history of the Revolutionary War, the King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, office is steeped in history. The office itself has a long history of servicing the counties adjacent to Philadelphia, in addition to Philadelphia. Though once located in the Montgomery County seat of Norristown, this office now sits not far from the King of Prussia Mall and an always active Top Golf facility. The office is also steeped in firm history as it has been affiliated with many of the firm’s founders and leaders through the years, including Jack Warner, Tom Brophy, Christopher Dougherty, Joe Santarone, and Wendy Bracaglia, to name a few. Today, with approximately 40 attorneys and 60 staff employees, the King of Prussia office is one of the firm’s largest branch offices and one of the largest law offices in Montgomery County. The office has long serviced Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties. We consolidated with our Doylestown and Allentown offices several years ago, and we now also service Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Lehigh, Monroe, Northampton, and Schuylkill Counties. The addition of attorneys from other offices and the acquisition of key talent from other firms through the years has created a dynamic team comprised of attorneys with numerous backgrounds, skill sets, and perspectives. The health care team has been a powerful engine for the office for years and continues to flourish. The group has long-standing client relationships with health care systems and providers throughout eastern Pennsylvania and continues to develop new relationships. Led by attorneys Robin Snyder and Donna Modestine, the group continues to grow, even with the recent retirements of several key health care attorneys in the past several years. In 2024, Gary Samms, one of the most sought-after trial attorneys in Pennsylvania, joined an already stalwart group of attorneys: Joan Ford, Joe Hoynoski, and Gabor Ovari. Recent special counsel and associate additions in the past several years include Kevin Majernik, Jonathan Landua, Evan Pentz, David McColloch, and Julianna Malloy, all of whom have joined us from other firms and have added to an already strong and highly-regarded unit.  Despite retirements of several experienced and senior attorneys in the past several years (we will sorely miss Mark Riley and Ed McGinn when they retire at year’s end) from the Casualty Department, we have pivoted and recently welcomed several talented and energetic associates—Khaliyah Pugh, Richard Lechette, and Ashley Stasak—to our core casualty group, consisting of Michele Frisbie, Michele Krengel, Tim Hartigan, Ed Tuite, and Rob Morton, in addition to those attorneys who strengthened our group after joining us from the Allentown office: Jason Banonis, Steve Keim, and Wendy O’Connor. The casualty attorneys handle a wide array of high-exposure casualty matters, ranging from construction personal injury to serious auto and premises liability matters and everything in between.  Frank Wickersham, Judd Woytek, Tony Natale, Michael Duffy, and Anna Jaoudi comprise the office’s workers’ compensation unit, which routinely achieves favorable results on behalf of their clients and is very well-regarded by the workers’ compensation bar. Tony and Anna also work in our Medicare Compliance Practice Group, providing the entire firm with an invaluable resource in reaching solutions for often complicated questions created by settlements and Medicare issues. Finally, the firm is fortunate to have a group of attorneys who handle a wide array of professional liability matters. They include Audrey Copeland, who handles appeals; Gregory Kelley, who focuses on professional liability and construction defects; Maureen Fitzgerald and Christin Kochel, who handle a wide variety of professional liability cases; and Paul Laughlin, who handles professional liability and health care cases. These added practice areas, and the skill with which these attorneys practice, ensure that the office, the firm, and our clients have access to invaluable resources and representation in numerous practice areas.  The office is defined, in large part, by the skill and talent of its attorneys, but it has had its share of characters and levity through the years, too. There has never been a shortage of social events (Top Golf, happy hours, associate dinners), games (trivia night), music (a staple on the “Class Action” tour circuit) and the occasional awkward photo of an office attorney from yesteryear. The office has always embodied one of the defining features that makes Marshall Dennehey special and unique: “A culture where humor is the great equalizer, and no one is above the friendly jest.” The office is also blessed with hard-working and talented paralegals and support staff, who are an integral part of our success and are led by our dedicated and tireless office manager, Suzie Spitko. One of the office’s primary strengths remains its versatility, both in the various practice groups that provide skilled lawyering and in its capacity to provide representation in numerous venues in eastern Pennsylvania. We have always thrived, in great part, due to our flexibility and adaptability and in bringing on new talent to continue our tradition of excellence. In many ways, the King of Prussia office serves as a microcosm of the firm at large: rich in history but poised for great things moving forward.  Mike is the managing attorney of our King of Prussia, PA office. He can be reached at 610-354-8271 or MLDetweiler@mdwcg.com.  Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 4, December 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. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.