.

Ralph P. Bocchino

Chair, Social Services & Human Services Liability Practice

RPBocchino@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Ralph P. Bocchino

A member of the firm since 1980, Ralph P. Bocchino is a senior shareholder and the chair of Casualty Group I in Philadelphia. In this role he oversees the workflow and administration of files for 15 attorneys and support staff.

Ralph has litigated a plethora of civil defense matters in the areas of product liability, premises liability, construction law and defect litigation, and motor vehicle liability including truck and bus accidents. Ralph was formerly the chair of the firm's Amusement, Sports & Entertainment Litigation Practice and, as such, represents amusement parks and entertainment venues.

In addition to his many achievements in the Casualty Department, Ralph has also litigated defamation and legal malpractice cases. He has represented universities, special needs schools, and institutions in claims alleging sexual, physical, and emotional abuse on behalf of the Elwyn Institute and a number of 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, individual schools and entities in all types of liability, including but not limited to child molestation and abuse. He has also counseled nursing homes in elopement and sepsis cases.

When Ralph started at the firm, he was assigned to handle asbestos matters. At the time, the firm represented Johns Mansville Corporation, the largest producer of asbestos, and Ralph was the youngest attorney in the nation to successfully defend the company. His work earned him the "Order of the Salamander Award" for litigation excellence from Johns Mansville. (Coger v. Johns Mansville Corporation, et al.)

Ralph frequently lectures for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and the Young Lawyers Association of Philadelphia on current civil procedure and legal issues. Ralph has also lectured at LaSalle University where he taught Real Estate, Business Law and Corporation courses. He has been recognized as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer consecutively since 2006 and holds an AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell rating for more than 25 years.

If Ralph is not in the office or in a courtroom, he can be found coaching various youth sports teams. Ralph is a licensed soccer coach and licensed referee. He has been coaching soccer for more than 25 years. He is the President of the Hunter Soccer Club, a non-profit youth organization in Glenside, Pennsylvania. Ralph and all of the volunteers at Hunter were honored by the Abington Community Task Force for Hunter's service to youth since 1962. Ralph was elected to the Bishop McDevitt High School "Hall of Fame" for more than 30 years of coaching, refereeing and umpiring youth sports in the community.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 1979)
    • La Salle University (B.A., 1976)
    • Pennsylvania, 1979
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1979
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 1981
    • Supreme Court of the United States, 1984
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyer (2006-2022)
    • Honored Member of Who's Who in Practicing Attorneys (1990)
    • "Order of the Salamander Award," 1990
    • American Bar Association
    • Justinian Society
    • Lawyers Club of Philadelphia
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Obtained summary judgment in a premises liability slip and fall case after their initial Rule 1036 motion had been denied. The plaintiff alleged that a metal protrusion from our clients’ property created a dangerous condition on a Philadelphia street. We first moved to dismiss on April 24, 2025, arguing that our clients had no affiliation with the property, but the court denied the motion as outside the scope of Pa.R.C.P. 1036. After efforts to secure a stipulation of dismissal were unsuccessful, we filed a second motion on December 10, 2025, asserting prejudice following the close of discovery. The Court ultimately granted the motion, resulting in summary judgment for our clients.
    • Successfully secured reconsideration following the denial of summary judgment motion in a construction accident case. The plaintiff, represented by a prominent personal injury firm, demanded $35 million. Though the court initially denied summary judgment, the team argued for reconsideration following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Yoder. Two weeks before jury selection, the Court of Common Pleas granted our motion—an outcome that is highly uncommon in Philadelphia—providing a decisive victory for our clients.
    • Defense verdict for manufacturer of concrete mixers in a suit claiming defective design in a truck roll-over matter.
    • Defense verdict for a garbage truck manufacturer for alleged defective design and failure to warn a truck driver who fell from the truck and required multiple surgeries.
    • Represented a personal care home in an elopement case where a resident left the premises and was found three weeks later drowned in the Delaware River. The court granted a compulsory non-suit based on the law of Pennsylvania and personal care homes.
    • Defense verdict on behalf of a manufacturer of a saw when a worker inadvertently sawed off part of his arm in a work-related accident.
    • Was the first attorney in Philadelphia to have an Azzarello hearing granted in a product liability case. A hearing was conducted before trial and then after the motion was granted, trial was commenced with product liability removed from the case, and a defense verdict was rendered thereafter by the empanelled jury. [Azzarello deals with having a court decide if a product is defective before trial, as a matter of law and fact.]
    • Received a defense verdict representing a 'mom and pop' hair salon when one of the customers claimed that they had a severe fall down the salon steps and required a hip replacement and knee replacement surgery.
    • Defense verdict received in representing an amusement park where a teenager drowned.
    • Defense verdict in a ski death case in upstate Pennsylvania.
    • Defense verdict in an asbestos case representing Johns Mansville Corporation, the largest manufacturer of asbestos products in the world in Philadelphia County, in 1980.
    • Defense verdict for an amusement park where a young child had severe lacerations and fractures from being injured in a sliding board accident.
    • Defense verdict in a gymnastics accident involving allegations of torn hamstrings, ruptured piriformus muscle and low back surgery following alleged improper stretching and warm-up exercises by a gymnastics instructor and coach.
    • Argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in an elevator accident case trying to maintain a Rule 50(A) Motion, which was granted at trial by the trial court, involving multiple back surgeries following an elevator accident.
    • Two defense verdicts in fraud matters involving staged automobile accidents.
    • Hills and Ridges Doctrine and discussion of Collins v. Philadelphia Suburban Development Co., Client Seminar, May 2018
    • Lights, Camera, Evidence!, Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI), Philadelphia PA, December 5, 2017
    • Accident Prevention and Investigation: Strategies for Risk Mitigation, Client Presentation, April 2017
    • Risk Shifting and Indemnity and Additional Insured Status, Ohio Casualty, April 2013
    • Nuances of the Political Subdivision Torts Claims Act, Ohio Casualty, April 2013
    • Dram Shop Liquor Liability, Markel Insurance Co. and Markel International Insurance, August 2011
    • The New Fair Share Act, Markel Insurance Co. and Markel International Insurance, August 2011
    • Comparative Negligence Act of Pennsylvania; Alternatives in Discovery; Jury Verdicts and Jury Issues in Philadelphia and Outlying Counties, Ohio Casualty, April 2010
    • Potpourri, "The Black Box," discuss varying topics including computer chips and information, equipment in various vehicles, automobiles, and trucks (2005/2007).
    • Discovery, Rules of Civil Procedure and Bad Faith in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Bar Institute
    • Releases and Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act, LaSalle Alumni Law Luncheon
    • Discovery Techniques and Trial Techniques, Young Lawyers Association of Philadelphia
    • Risk Shifting and Indemnity and Additional Insured Status, Ohio Casualty, April 2013
    • “MAP-21 and the Role of Black-Box Recorders in Discovery,”  The Legal Intelligencer, June 5, 2012
    • "When Pucks and Foul Balls Fly No Duty Rule of Pennsylvania," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 2002
    • "Punitive Damages and Deceased Defendants," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, March 8, 1999 and, Defense Digest, Vol 4, No. 6, 1998
    • "The Blizzard's Backlash: A Symposium on Issues Confronting Pennsylvania and New Jersey Property Owners," Co-Author, Defense Digest, March, 1996
    • "Challenges to Venue Produce Positive Result," Defense Digest, Fall, 1992
    • Obtained summary judgment in a premises liability slip and fall case after their initial Rule 1036 motion had been denied. The plaintiff alleged that a metal protrusion from our clients’ property created a dangerous condition on a Philadelphia street. We first moved to dismiss on April 24, 2025, arguing that our clients had no affiliation with the property, but the court denied the motion as outside the scope of Pa.R.C.P. 1036. After efforts to secure a stipulation of dismissal were unsuccessful, we filed a second motion on December 10, 2025, asserting prejudice following the close of discovery. The Court ultimately granted the motion, resulting in summary judgment for our clients.
    • Successfully secured reconsideration following the denial of summary judgment motion in a construction accident case. The plaintiff, represented by a prominent personal injury firm, demanded $35 million. Though the court initially denied summary judgment, the team argued for reconsideration following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Yoder. Two weeks before jury selection, the Court of Common Pleas granted our motion—an outcome that is highly uncommon in Philadelphia—providing a decisive victory for our clients.
    • Defense verdict for manufacturer of concrete mixers in a suit claiming defective design in a truck roll-over matter.
    • Defense verdict for a garbage truck manufacturer for alleged defective design and failure to warn a truck driver who fell from the truck and required multiple surgeries.
    • Represented a personal care home in an elopement case where a resident left the premises and was found three weeks later drowned in the Delaware River. The court granted a compulsory non-suit based on the law of Pennsylvania and personal care homes.
    • Defense verdict on behalf of a manufacturer of a saw when a worker inadvertently sawed off part of his arm in a work-related accident.
    • Was the first attorney in Philadelphia to have an Azzarello hearing granted in a product liability case. A hearing was conducted before trial and then after the motion was granted, trial was commenced with product liability removed from the case, and a defense verdict was rendered thereafter by the empanelled jury. [Azzarello deals with having a court decide if a product is defective before trial, as a matter of law and fact.]
    • Received a defense verdict representing a 'mom and pop' hair salon when one of the customers claimed that they had a severe fall down the salon steps and required a hip replacement and knee replacement surgery.
    • Defense verdict received in representing an amusement park where a teenager drowned.
    • Defense verdict in a ski death case in upstate Pennsylvania.
    • Defense verdict in an asbestos case representing Johns Mansville Corporation, the largest manufacturer of asbestos products in the world in Philadelphia County, in 1980.
    • Defense verdict for an amusement park where a young child had severe lacerations and fractures from being injured in a sliding board accident.
    • Defense verdict in a gymnastics accident involving allegations of torn hamstrings, ruptured piriformus muscle and low back surgery following alleged improper stretching and warm-up exercises by a gymnastics instructor and coach.
    • Argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in an elevator accident case trying to maintain a Rule 50(A) Motion, which was granted at trial by the trial court, involving multiple back surgeries following an elevator accident.
    • Two defense verdicts in fraud matters involving staged automobile accidents.
    • OSHA 10-Hour Construction Certification

Results

View all

Dismissal Secured in Food Poisoning and Hepatitis A Case

We successfully obtained dismissal of their client in a death-from-food-poisoning and hepatitis A case. The plaintiff, Joyce Neeld, executrix of the Estate of Alfred Neeld, alleged that Mr. Neeld passed away due to an outbreak of hepatitis A in southeast Pennsylvania, which was widely covered by the news at the time. The plaintiff, who claimed that Mr. Neeld passed away after eating at Gino’s Pizzeria and Ristorante, was seeking several million dollars from every food provider that served the restaurant, including our client. Fortunately, the plaintiff stipulated to our dismissal.

Summary Judgment Granted in Major Jury Case Involving Serious Injuries

We successfully argued a motion for summary judgment on a major jury case where we represented a tenant shop owner. The plaintiff opposed our motion, alleging, inter alia, serious injuries to a shoulder and surgery. There were many moving pieces in this case, including indemnity issues, an alleged triple net lease and joinder after the statute of limitations. The plaintiff tripped and fell on a sidewalk that was under repair outside of our client’s store. We were joined by the original defendant, the landlord. We argued the plaintiff had no direct cause of action against us as we were joined after the statute of limitations; there was no evidence of record of our involvement as plaintiff did not visit our store; we were not responsible for the sidewalk repair; and the original defendant landlord was responsible for the sidewalk in question as the lease was ambiguous as to who was responsible for external repairs.   

Firm Highlights

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.

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

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. 

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

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