.

Michele P. Frisbie

Shareholder

MPFrisbie@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Michele P. Frisbie

Michele defends a wide variety of cases and has a special interest in working closely with professionals to achieve the successful, cost-effective defense of suits against specialists such as those involved in the sale, appraisal and management of real estate; insurers and insurance brokers and agents; attorneys; mental health service providers and municipal entities. Michele also has extensive experience involving personal injury such as premises liability, dog bites, automobile accidents, dram shop and hotel, restaurant and store security.

Michele has direct experience as a past board member of the Bucks County Bar Association Board of Directors and its Mandatory Continuing Education and Member Services Committee and the Central Bucks Family YMCA and its Building and Grounds and Financial Development Committees.

In 1992, she joined Marshall Dennehey as a file clerk. Michele graduated cum laude from St. Joseph's University in 1993. She attended Villanova University School of Law in 1993 and served as a law clerk until her graduation in 1996, when she joined Marshall Dennehey as an attorney. During her free time, Michele is an ACE certified group fitness instructor and a personal trainer.

    • Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (J.D., 1996)
    • Saint Joseph's University (B.A., cum laude, 1993)
    • Pennsylvania, 1996
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2005-2006)
    • Bucks County Bar Association, Chair of Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Committee (2009-2012)
    • Bucks County Bar Association, Board of Directors (2002-2004)
    • Bucks County Bar Association, Chair Member Services Committee (2004-2007)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • "Personal Injury Exculpatory Clauses," Stafford Webinars, April 28, 2021
    • Board of Directors, Central Bucks Family YMCA
    • Obtained a dismissal with prejudice in a Magisterial District Court matter involving breach of duty allegations against members of a homeowners’ association board. The pro se plaintiff claimed the board officers violated the Pennsylvania Uniform Planned Community Act by failing to properly notice and conduct meetings, perform annual audits, and manage community funds. We successfully argued that the plaintiff’s claims were derivative in nature and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Magisterial District Judge. “The Judge took no testimony or evidence,” and the matter was dismissed.
    • Obtained a summary judgment in favor of a HOA, with the court holding that the HOA had no duty to protect the plaintiffs from the attacks of a neighbors’ dangerous dog. On two occasions, the plaintiffs were attacked by their neighbors' dogs, causing serious injuries and permanent scarring. The plaintiffs alleged that the HOA had a duty to protect them from the co-defendants' dogs. The court granted summary judgment for the HOA, holding that under McMahon v. Pleasant Valley West Association, 952 A.2d 731 (Pa. Commw. 2008), an HOA has a “duty to the members of the common-interest community to use ordinary care and prudence in managing the property of the community that is subject to its control." However, that duty does not extend to removing an allegedly dangerous dog as the HOA has neither the obligation nor the ability to remove dogs from the community.
    • Won an arbitration in a premises liability case where the plaintiff claimed she slipped and fell on a container of clear hand sanitizer spilled on the floor of the baking goods aisle of a grocery store. The plaintiff acknowledged she was not looking where she was going. There was no evidence of how the substance got on the floor, how long it had been there, or that the store was aware of it. 
    • Obtained a dismissal with prejudice of a products liability case filed against an alcohol beverage manufacturer. The Plaintiffs are individuals who were seriously injured or killed when the alleged minor drunk driver of the vehicle in which they were passengers was involved in a single car accident. The Plaintiffs claimed that the manufacturer was liable to them because the product had more alcohol than other alcohol beverages, was improperly marketed to minors, like their driver, and did not warn of the dangers associated with the beverage. Our team argued several points including that Pennsylvania does not recognize such a products liability cause of action because the dangers of drinking alcohol and driving are obvious, and the manufacturer has no duty to warn potential users of such dangers.  Additionally, alcohol is not an unreasonably dangerous product.
    • Obtained a transfer and dismissal with prejudice on a motion to dismiss in a legal malpractice action. We argued that the plaintiff’s claim that the negligence of her daughter’s court-appointed guardian ad litem led to the award of custody of the child to the father following a dependency hearing. The custody award, the plaintiff alleged, put her at a disadvantage in the divorce and damaged her and the child. First, Michele successfully argued for the transfer of the matter from the county of the mother’s residence to the county of the dependency hearing. She then successfully argued that the plaintiff had no right to bring a cause of action for herself or the child.
    • Defense verdict for a real estate seller's agent in a claim of misrepresentation of the condition of the property.
    • Defense verdict in a coverage claim arising out of wind damage to a mobile home.
    • Motion to dismiss granted in a case claiming appraisers conspired with the builder of a residential development to conceal the presence of a Superfund site adjacent to the development.
    • Motion to dismiss granted in a case against attorneys who allegedly failed to timely file a legal malpractice cause of action arising from an underlying toxic tort claim.
    • Secured the voluntary withdrawal of a case against a local sewer authority which allegedly improperly removed trees from the easement that ran over the plaintiff's property.
    • Secured the dismissal of a claim that an insurance broker allegedly failed to secure a binder for a homeowners' policy which resulted in no coverage after a fire.
    • Secured the dismissal of a mental health institution in a case where the plaintiff, a convicted murderer, claimed that if the institution had not negligently treated him for his drug and alcohol addictions, he would not have committed the crime.

Results

View all

Dismissal with Prejudice Obtained in Case Targeting Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturer

We secured a dismissal with prejudice in a product liability case in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs, who were involved, but not responsible, for a drunk driving accident, claimed that the beverage manufacturer was liable to them because the product had more alcohol than other alcoholic beverages and was improperly marketed to minors. Our team successfully argued several points, including that Pennsylvania does not recognize such a product liability cause of action because the dangers of drinking alcohol and driving are obvious, and the manufacturer has no duty to warn potential users of such dangers.

Claim for Corporate Veil Piercing in Wrongful Death Dram Shop Action Dismissed

The plaintiff included a count seeking to pierce the corporate veil and pursue the principals of the liquor licensee under an enterprise theory of liability. We argued that there is no cause of action for corporate veil piercing under an enterprise theory; rather, these theories are used to recover if, and only if, the entity is not able to satisfy any judgment against it. The court dismissed the count.

Firm Highlights

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Thought Leadership

Fla. Workers' Comp Physician Dispensing Ruling Could Produce New Legislative Fight

In a significant decision issued on February 25, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (DCA) ruled in Publix Super Markets, Inc., et al. v. Department of Financial Services, et al., 430 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026), that while injured workers have an absolute right to choose their own pharmacy or pharmacist, that right does not extend to physicians who dispense medications directly to their patients.  Read Blake's article in Insurance Journal: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2026/08/05/880229.htm. 

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.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

A Unified, Single Claim for Damages Requires Apportionment in a Joint Proposal: What the Decision in 'Trace Elements' Means for Property Insurance Claims

Kimberly and Seth, shareholders in the Insurance Services Practice in our Fort Lauderdale office, break down the Florida Supreme Court's decision in 'Trace Elements v. MacKensen' and what it means for property insurance claims in the state. Read the article here.

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

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.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial