.

Patrick T. Reilly

Co-Chair of the Hospitality & Liquor Liability Practice

Co-Chair, Asbestos & Mass Tort Litigation

PTReilly@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Patrick T. Reilly

Patrick manages the firm’s asbestos and toxic tort practice in western Pennsylvania. His practice includes serving as local counsel, trial counsel and national coordinating counsel for various insured and self-insured product manufacturers. Additionally, he represents both major corporate clients and small businesses in product liability, toxic tort and complex environmental and commercial litigation, including defending talc, asbestos, and negligence claims.

In addition to his work in toxic tort defense, Patrick is a member of the firm’s Casualty Department. In this capacity he defends all types of general and commercial liability cases, ranging from product liability cases to fall downs. He has worked defending bars and restaurants in both general liability and liquor liability matters for more than ten years.

Patrick also continues to represent automobile manufacturers, car dealerships, and automobile service facilities in claims made for breach of warranty, fraud, unfair trade practices and negligence.

Patrick has both jury and non-jury trial experience. He has tried hundreds of cases within the Commonwealth's Compulsory Arbitration system.

    • Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University (J.D., 2006)
    • Saint Joseph's University (B.A., magna cum laude, 2003)
    • Pennsylvania, 2006
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2006
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (2024-2027)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2013-2021)
    • Pittsburgh Legal Diversity & Inclusion Coalition, Ally-Ready Training Program, 2021
    • Allegheny County Bar Association
    • Northside Common Ministries, Advisory Board Member (2013 - 2019)
    • Pittsburgh Legal Diversity & Inclusion Coalition: Retention Committee Member, 2021 – Present; Survey Committee Member, 2022 – Present
    • Serving Safely: Navigating Liquor Liability in Hospitality, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, September 16, 2025
    • Liquor Liability: The Do’s and Don’ts, Marshall Dennehey Client Event, August 2025
    • Serving Safely: Navigating Liquor Liability in Hospitality, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, May 28, 2025
    • Serving Safely: Navigating Liquor Liability in Hospitality, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, February 25, 2025
    • Liquor Liability Do’s and Don’ts: Implementing a Safe Alcohol Service Program for Resorts, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, November 14, 2024
    • Liquor Liability: The Do’s and Don’ts, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, August 2024
    • Pursuing and Defending Attorney Fee Claims, Allegheny County Bar Association, Pittsburgh, PA, August 30, 2022
    • The New Marketing Tool—Creating a Podcast that People Want to Hear, Pennsylvania Defense Institute (PDI) 2021 Annual Conference, Bedford Springs, PA., July 16, 2021
    • Defending Liquor Liability and Hospitality Claims, “On a Roll” Podcast with Nichole Perzel, produced by W.N. Tuscano Agency, March, 2021
    • What's Trending in Liquor Law? Help Your Bars and Restaurants Mitigate Their Risk, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, February 9th, 2021
    • Voir Dire and Jury Selection in 2020, Allegheny County Bar Association Civil Litigation Section - Webinar, August 18, 2020
    • Liquor Law and Insurance Needs: Risk Management for Bars and Restaurants, Client Hospitality & Liquor Lines Team Virtual Conference, June 18, 2020
    • PENNSYLVANIA Liquor Law AND Insurance Needs: Risk Management for Bars and Restaurants,  Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, January 13, 2020
    • Voir Dire and Jury Selection in Allegheny County,  Pennsylvania Defense Institute, December 4, 2019
    • Civil Litigation Skills Training - Conducting Voir Dire in Allegheny County, Allegheny County Bar Association Civil Litigation Section, April 8, 2019
    • Jury Selection Process in the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Women’s Bar Association of Western Pennsylvania, June 21, 2018
    • Civil Litigation Skills Training - Conducting Voir Dire in Allegheny County, Allegheny County Bar Association Civil Litigation Section, April 5, 2018
    • Discoverability and Proper Use of Claim Notes, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, October 2011
    • Obtained voluntary dismissal of a dram shop death case where he was able to prove prior to the filing of a complaint that plaintiff's decedent was intoxicated as a result of liquor contained within his home, rather than alcohol allegedly purchased at the client's bar.
    • Prepared successful Motion for Summary Judgment in a conveyor belt death case in which we represented the company who purchased the assets of the bankrupt corporation which manufactured the conveyor belt at issue.
    • Prepared successful Motion for Judgment on the pleadings in a death case on behalf of a methadone clinic. Plaintiff's theory was that plaintiff's decedent was killed by a driver who had been either improperly treated at the methadone clinic or had been improperly permitted to drive following treatment. He successfully argued that no duty exists to a third party motorist under such circumstances under Pennsylvania law.
    • Has handled well over 50 compulsory arbitration cases in counties throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
    • Has utilized ADR when appropriate, referring a number of cases to mediation where appropriate.
    • Has assisted in the handling of numerous cases against bars filed by plaintiffs who alleged improper service of alcohol, either to themselves or to other patrons. These cases have involved fatal motor vehicle accidents, assaults, suicide and other significant and serious injuries.

Results

View all

Claims Against Bar/Restaurant Dismissed in Dram Shop Action

The plaintiff spent the afternoon at our client’s restaurant/bar before driving ten minutes to his local Country Club to continue celebrating his birthday. Ninety minutes after he arrived at the Club, he fell down the stairs and suffered a severe brain injury. His Blood Alcohol Content was roughly three times the legal limit. The plaintiff had previously worked as a high-end custom wood finisher but is now unable to see color, among having other deficits, and he is alleged to be fully disabled.  After more than 20 depositions, and despite varying reports as to what the plaintiff had to drink at our client’s establishment, we were able to argue that he showed no signs of visible intoxication prior to the last service of alcohol by our client. Our motion was strenuously opposed by the Country Club, who argued there was testimony that the plaintiff appeared intoxicated upon his arrival at the Club. The court agreed with our argument that this was insufficient evidence for a jury to find that our client served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated plaintiff, and, as such, all claims against our client were dismissed and summary judgment was granted.

Thought Leadership

View all

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Navigating the New Era of Dram Shop Liability: Marshall Dennehey’s Hospitality & Liquor Liability Practice Group Steps Forward

September 1, 2025

Dram shop liability, or liquor liability, is civil liability—typically for bars and restaurants—for personal injuries arising out of service of alcohol to either a minor or a visibly-intoxicated patron. And it is quite the hot topic these days. An article about “dram shop” cases recently graced the front page of The Philadelphia Inquirer; quite a far stretch from what has long been a somewhat overlooked and largely ignored area of personal injury litigation.  Marshall Dennehey has been handling liquor liability claims since the days when the most common question we fielded was, “What is dram shop?” These cases have always had the potential to inflame juries due to the volatile nature of the fact patterns and circumstances surrounding alcohol-related incidents. But now, in the era of the “nuclear verdict,” juries are rendering astronomical verdicts in these cases.  Philadelphia attorney, M. Scott Gemberling, and King of Prussia attorney, Tony Michetti, have been at the forefront of this litigation for the past 40 years. With Tony’s recent retirement, and Scott’s transition to senior counsel at the firm, we have been appointed co-chairs of the firm’s longstanding Hospitality & Liquor Liability Practice Group. While it may seem like a “new era” here we have been learning from and working with Scott and Tony for the past two decades. And while Scott and Tony have tried plenty of liquor liability cases to verdict, their true legacy is a forward-thinking strategy focused on smart, fixed, and speedy investigation of claims, along with an evaluation of early mediation. The hope is to avoid, where possible, the nuclear verdicts that are increasingly splashed across the front pages of newspapers. This is the legacy we intend to carry forward. Drawing on our many years of experience, our team is here to handle any type of accident that accompanies or is related to the service of alcohol. While the classic “dram shop” scenario involves the patron who leaves a bar or restaurant and gets into a motor vehicle accident while intoxicated, that is just one scenario. We have handled cases against bars and restaurants arising out of numerous types of injuries that can occur, including cases involving:  •    Alcohol poisoning •    Bar fights •    Car accidents •    Motorcycle accidents •    Shootings •    Stabbings •    Suicide •    University fraternity/sorority events Additionally, the members of our group routinely present on the topics of safe service of alcohol, as well as risk management best practices, to help avoid and protect against claims and litigation. Whether you are faced with a lawsuit involving alcohol, or whether you are a business looking to avoid such a situation, our Hospitality & Liquor Liability Practice Group is here to help.  Patrick and Carolyn co-chair our Hospitality & Liquor Liability Practice Group. Patrick works in our Pittsburgh, PA office, and Carolyn works in our Mount Laurel, NJ office.   Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 3, September 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.

Protecting Your Bar From Claims in the Wake of ‘Mortimer’

February 15, 2023

Even if the licensee is apportioned a minimal amount of liability and the AIP is assigned the majority of liability, the licensee will nevertheless be on the hook for the entire judgment. A savvy plaintiff will strive to establish dram shop liability against the licensee, recognizing that oftentimes the licensee may have more assets that could be used toward a judgment than those of an AIP.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.

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.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

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

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

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

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

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.