.

Peter A. Lentini

Shareholder

PALentini@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Peter A. Lentini

As a shareholder, Peter practices in the area of general civil litigation, with particular emphasis on product liability and premises liability litigation. With trial experience in both state and federal courts in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Peter has handled hundreds of product liability, motor vehicle, trucking and transportation, and premises claims--many involving death, paralysis, loss of limb, burns, blindness, brain injuries, and other severe and permanent injuries. He also defended fire loss cases for a major manufacturer of computer equipment. Sample product claims have involved hunting tree stands, conveyors, commercial laundry equipment, gas powered cut saw, industrial machinery, electric carts, laptop computers, printers, HVAC systems, sprinkler valves, gym equipment, portable stairs, safety harness, dishwasher, roofing materials and manufactured homes. Additionally, Peter has experience defending organizations and hotel chains in high-exposure cases involving human trafficking and sexual assault allegations, including matters brought under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).

Peter has considerable experience in product litigation relating to hunting tree stand accidents. He has worked for various manufacturers, retailers and insurance companies in this industry. In addition to handling these claims directly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Peter has counseled, handled or overseen the defense of over 200 product claims in states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. 

Additionally, Peter has served as an adjunct professor of pre-trial advocacy for Rutgers School of Law in Camden, New Jersey, and is a member of the Camden County Bar Association.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 1987)
    • La Salle University (B.A., cum laude, 1984)
    • New Jersey, 1987
    • Pennsylvania, 1987
    • New Jersey Super Lawyer (2005, 2010 )
      The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
    • Camden County Bar Association
    • Granted summary judgment in gasoline powered saw case involving head injuries resulting in medical expenses of $500,000, severe scarring, and allegations of permanent injury.
    • Granted summary judgment in a construction/roofing accident case involving head injuries resulting in medical expenses of $400,000, skull disfigurement, and allegations of permanent injury.
    • Dismissal in death case that resulted in settlement of $6 million by co-defendants. Established that client had limited or no role in allegations of negligence related to rail yard accident.
    • Identified the misuse of a product as a likely cause of an accident involving the traumatic amputation of two fingers resulting in an $80,000 settlement of claim despite $150,000 workers' compensation lien.
    • Blofstein v. Rubenstein, et al. Civil rights claim against Bucks County District Attorney and Prison Warden, verdict for defendants.
    • Howarth v. Reorganized Church. Horseback riding accident, 13-year-old plaintiff with brain injury, $50,000 medical expenses, admission of negligence, settlement demand $2.6 million, settlement offer $250,000, total jury verdict of $77,826.
    • Grumbling v. Loggy Bayou. Product claim involving fall from hunting tree stand, spinal fractures necessitating four level lumbar spinal fusion, settlement demand $800,000, verdict for defendant.
    • Leiggi v. Loggy Bayou. Product claim involving fall from hunting tree stand, disc herniation, fractured arm and ribs, $250,000 stipulated damages, verdict for defendant.
    • Crisefi v. Oaklyn Board of Education. Negligent supervision claim against school teachers, sixth grader with wrist fracture/permanent residual claims, verdict for defendants.
    • Torrez v. Super Fresh. Negligent maintenance of hydraulic pallet jack, knee and ankle surgeries, $90,000 jury verdict, reversed -- verdict entered for defendant on appeal.
    • Coyne v. Laidlaw. Motor vehicle accident, cervical spinal disectomy with two level fusion and insertion of Codman plate, liability awarded to plaintiff via summary judgment before trial, $300,000 demand after summary judgment, $75,000 jury verdict.
    • Mazza v. SK Hand Tools. Product liability claim involving broken ratchet, plaintiff rendered legally blind in tire changing accident. Verdict for defendant.

Results

View all

Positive Outcome Obtained in a Motor Vehicle/Wrongful Death Trial

We defended a client in a motor vehicle/wrongful death trial in which the jury awarded a much smaller amount than the plaintiff sought. The decedent was rear-ended on the New Jersey Turnpike while driving 9.9 miles per hour at 3 a.m. He was intoxicated, with a blood alcohol level of .095. His car, which was black with black wheels and black tinted windows, was disabled by the collision and came to rest broadside in the left travel lane. A good Samaritan tow truck driver saw the crash and stopped to render assistance. The decedent, who was uninjured in the initial accident, borrowed the tow truck driver’s phone/flashlight and re-entered his car in the left lane. Our client’s truck subsequently hit the disabled car while the decedent was in it. The trial judge refused to allow us to introduce evidence relating to the first accident. The decedent’s contributory negligence in causing the first accident, which put him in peril, was to have been the focus of our defense. Given the surprisingly small verdict, the client indicated that it will likely accept the result. Before trial, the plaintiff’s economist estimated the value of lost services to the family at more than $6 million. The judge dismissed damages relating to two siblings. The jury awarded significantly reduced damages to the decedent’s mother in accordance with the arguments we made.

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/

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

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

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.

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. 

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

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.