Marshall Dennehey's Professional Liability Department delivers powerful, results‑driven defense representation for clients spanning all areas of professional liability representation. Supported by a robust team of seasoned litigators across 19 strategically located offices, we offer the scale, experience, and agility to take on cases of any size or complexity. Clients trust us for our responsiveness, our exceptional insight, and our unwavering commitment to protecting their interests before and if necessary, at every stage of litigation.
Our Professional Liability Department consists of over 20 distinct areas of law, showcasing the strength and sophistication of our capabilities. We represent the full range of non‑medical professionals, including lawyers, accountants, architects, engineers, licensed agents, broker‑dealers and any miscellaneous profession typically covered by a professional liability policy. In addition to our traditional practice defending errors and omissions claims against licensed professionals, Marshall Dennehey’s Professional Liability Department includes practice groups, dedicated to Employment/ Management Liability, Public Entity/ Civil Rights, School Leaders/ Educational Institutions, Cyber/Data-Security/Incidence Response, Appellate Advocacy and all aspects of Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Litigation.
Our attorneys are known for their skill in navigating politically sensitive, high‑stakes, and technically demanding cases. Clients benefit not only from our trial‑tested defense capabilities but also from our years of specific subject matter expertise that allow us to efficiently render sound prelitigation advice and consultation services in order to mitigate risk and avoid litigation.
Together, these integrated capabilities allow us to deliver comprehensive, forward‑thinking representation that protects our clients’ interests and positions them for long‑term success.
Professional Liability Practices
Accountants’ Professional Liability
Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice
Architectural, Engineering & Construction Defect Litigation
Cannabis Law
Class Action Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Consumer Financial Services Litigation
Disciplinary Board Representation
Employment Law
First-Party Property
Insurance Agents & Brokers Liability
Insurance Services – Coverage & Bad Faith Litigation
Intellectual Property, Technology & Media Litigation
Lawyers' Professional Liability
Miscellaneous Professional Liability
Non-Profit D&O
Privacy & Data Security
Public Entity & Civil Rights Litigation
Real Estate E&O Liability
School Leaders' Liability
Securities & Investments Professional Liability
White-Collar Crime
Results
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.
Successful Defense of High‑Profile Condo Board Election Challenge as Court Dismisses Claims With Prejudice
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Special Education Law
PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher
June 2, 2026
A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.
The Legal Intelligencer
What’s the Gist of the Gist of the Action in Pennsylvania?
May 14, 2026
The question of when and how the gist of the action doctrine applies to professional liability claims in Pennsylvania, and whether a breach of contract claim may be asserted in any legal malpractice action where there is a contract, remains open.
