.

Ray C. Freudiger

Shareholder

RCFreudiger@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Ray C. Freudiger

Ray Freudiger is a highly experienced litigator, having represented and defended clients in over 100 bench and jury trials in the state and Federal courts of Ohio. He has spent his career defending businesses and public entity clients in a wide variety of professional and general liability claims and suits brought against them. 

As a member of the firm’s Professional Liability Department, Ray has experience defending school districts in a wide array of matters including allegations of wrongful termination and discrimination and has knowledge of Special Education laws needed to appear in due process hearings before independent hearing officers. He also defends employers against allegations of discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity and/or national origin. He represents these clients before the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, the EEOC, and in the federal and state courts. Ray additionally defends insurance agents and brokers, amusement park operators, real estate brokers & agents, architects, engineers, surveyors and homeowners associations in errors & omissions claims. Since joining the firm, he has had 11 jury trials, 10 of which resulted in a defense verdict and the other verdict substantially less than the pretrial offer. 

Ray has defended clients before administrative agencies such as in the Ohio Division of Real Estate, Ohio Civil Rights Commission, and Department of Urban Development (HUD). He also regularly conducts seminars for real estate brokers and their agents on real estate law issues, as part of their continuing education requirements and to help them to avoid litigation. Prior to attending law school, Ray obtained his property and casualty insurance license, which has served him well in representing clients in insurance coverage and bad faith matters.
 

    • University of Cincinnati College of Law (J.D., 1991)
    • University of Cincinnati (B.B.A., 1982)
    • Ohio, 1991
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio, 1993
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit, 2017
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio, 2018
    • Supreme Court of the United States, 2019
    • Cincinnati Bar Association
    • Ohio State Bar Association, Education Law Committee
    • Dayton Bar Association, Civil Trial Practice Committee
    • Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee
    • DRI (Defense Research Institute)
    • Education Law Association
    • An Overview of Commercial Auto Insurance in Pennsylvania & Ohio, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, January 26, 2021
    • Risk Management Best Practices for Engineers, Client Presentation, January 25, 2018
    • Secured a decision from the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed a jury verdict in favor of our client, a housing authority in Ohio.  After written Briefing and oral argument, The Sixth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict in which the Appellant developer failed to prove that the Housing Authority discriminated against it (in violation of ADA and FHA) by refusing to apply to HUD for VASH vouchers on behalf of the developer. The developer failed to prove it asked the housing authority for VASH on behalf of disabled persons, the request was not reasonable, and the request was not necessary to enable disabled persons to enjoy their residents as non-disabled persons could.
    • Secured dismissal on behalf of our client, an insurance agency in Hamilton County, Ohio. The plaintiff entity alleged that it suffered monetary damages by having to pay for claims made against its California employees. It alleged the agency failed to obtain Employment Practices Liability insurance for the company’s California employees. In our Motion to Dismiss, Ray successfully argued that the “economic loss doctrine” barred all claims against the agency. 
    • Successfully argued in Motion for Summary Judgment that Plaintiffs' claims were precluded by law because the general grant of immunity pursuant to R.C. §2744.01 applied to them as a political subdivision and no exception to immunity existed. Plaintiffs, a minor student and parent, filed suit against the school district, school board, supervising teacher, and principal alleging they were negligent when an afterschool science project (through the STEM program) caught fire causing burn injuries to the student. This included the exception that allows for negligence claims when there is a physical defect within or on the grounds of the entity.  Further, the individual employees were also granted immunity because they were acting in their official capacities and thus the same analysis afforded to the school applied to the individuals. The Judge ultimately granted our Motion and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims.  
    • Obtained dismissal of an Ohio insurance agent who was sued by a condominium association.  The allegation was that the insurance agent inappropriately and unlawfully inserted himself into the insurance company’s investigation and tortuously interfered with the contract that resulted in the insurance company paying far less than the $1.3 million in damages alleged by the condominium association.  After taking depositions of the individuals from the condominium association, the insurance company, and defending his client’s deposition, Ray convinced Plaintiff’s attorney to dismiss all claims against the insurance agent.
    • Obtained a summary judgement in a slip and fall matter involving a liquor store, where the plaintiff slipped and fractured her wrist upon stepping into the store on May 18, 2018. Heavy rain that evening allegedly caused water to be blown inside, which Field claimed as the cause of her fall. A wet floor sign was present, but she did not see it. We argued that the rainwater was an open and obvious condition, which under Ohio law, they had no duty to warn against. The court, citing similar cases, agreed, noting that a property owner is generally not liable for injuries from open and obvious conditions like rainwater. As Field failed to establish that the defendants breached their duty of care, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
    • Obtained a summary judgement for a general contractor insured by our client. Plaintiff was working for his employer at a fracking site when he was struck in the head by a hose that came off an above-ground storage tank. He sustained serious and permanent injuries. Plaintiff claimed the general contractor was liable for his injuries because it actively participated on the work site and controlled the unsafe condition which caused his injuries. We moved for summary judgment arguing that the general contractor relinquished complete control over the site to a sub-contractor and, thus, it had no control over any unsafe condition which caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of our client.
    • Secured significant victory in wrongful death commercial liability action at both trial and appellate court levels in suit involving death of 18-year old woman who was struck and killed by a commercial truck that was backing up an access ramp to deliver product at a grain receiving facility at the same time the woman traversed onto the ramp.
    • Obtained a defense verdict in a jury trial where the case involved a rear end car accident. The plaintiff alleged serious and permanent injury, and while our client admitted fault, their contention was that the impact was of a minimal nature. The plaintiff incurred over $69,000 in medical expenses after the accident, and made a settlement demand of $200,000. The plaintiff rejected our nominal offer to settle the case before trial. Through the use of medical expert testimony, the defense contended that plaintiff's treatment was fueled by her subjective complaints, but there was no objective evidence of injury. The jury ruled in favor of the defendant.
    • Obtained a summary judgment on behalf of an insurance agent and the insurance agency. The agent and agency helped a business procure property and liability insurance on its business. A fire loss occurred and the insured discovered that it did not have business interruption coverage. It sued the agent and the agency for negligence, breach of contract and estoppel in failing to procure business interruption coverage for the insured. We convinced the Court that an insurance agent only has a duty to seek coverage which has been requested by the insured. Although the agent reassured the insured the day after the fire that the insured had business interruption coverage, the fact that this statement was incorrect, there is no evidence of any reliance by the insured, any reliance would have been unreasonable and unforeseen and the insured would have know that the agent's statements were incorrect if it had looked at the policy in its possession.
    • Successfully defended EEOC Charge of Discrimination brought against charter school client for alleged disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, as well of claims of FMLA interference and retaliation, resulting in finding of No Probable Cause in favor of employer.
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of insurance agency and insurance agent clients in insurance agent/broker professional liability action involving alleged failure to procure business interruption coverage for insured's start-up restaurant, which subsequently sustained uncovered fire loss.
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of one of nation’s largest grocery store chains in significant federal rights action that received considerable media attention venued in federal court in Cincinnati involving unruly patron and patron's right to open carry weapon on private premises.
    • Secured dispositive dismissal on behalf of national insurance carrier in breach of contract and bad faith action involving residential fire that occurred at insureds' residence. In addition, as a result of in-depth investigation and discovery in civil suit, insureds were charged with and pled guilty to crimes of arson and insurance fraud.

Results

View all

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.

Summary Judgment Secured in a Design Defect Case

We won summary judgment on behalf of a company that provided software for the overall design of roof trusses in a design defect case. The plaintiff owned the apartment complex being built and hired Turnbull Wahlert to construct the building. 84 Lumber was subcontracted by Turnbull to build and install the roof trusses. 84 Lumber contracted with our client to use its software for the design of the roof trusses and to provide truss connect plate hangers. The building experienced severe water damage allegedly because the roof trusses were not sloped properly and the HVAC units were misplaced on the roof. Damages were estimated at over $1.2 million. 84 Lumber demanded that our client defend and indemnify it against Turnbull’s allegations. The court granted our motion for summary judgment.

Thought Leadership

View all

Legal Updates for Real Estate E&O Liability

New Ohio Law Targets Real Estate Wholesaling Practices

May 7, 2026

Effective March 2, 2026, the Ohio Department of Commerce Division of Real Estate and Professional Licensing (REPL) now requires real estate wholesalers to clearly disclose their intention and business model when contracting with a property owner and seller.  This was part of Ohio Senate Bill 155, which passed unanimously in the Ohio Senate in June 2025, and was signed into law by Governor Mike DeWine on December 1, 2025.  Real estate wholesalers serve as intermediaries in property transactions. They enter into a purchase agreement with a seller with no intent to buy the property themselves. Instead, they assign the contract to another buyer or investor at a higher price or charge a fee, typically 5% to 10% of the sale price, to earn a profit. The REPL, in partnership with the Ohio Department of Aging (ODA), and Ohio District 5 Area Agency on Aging in Richland issued a Consumer Alert in March 2025, on wholesalers, citing a rise in unsolicited real estate offers targeting older Ohio homeowners, often offering complex financial arrangements that include hidden risks, leaving older homeowners financially vulnerable. Under this new legislation, real estate wholesalers in Ohio are required to disclose their status to sellers or property owners and clarify that they do not represent the seller in the transaction. The law mandates that this disclosure be made through a clear and conspicuous written statement informing the seller that the individual is acting as a wholesaler. This disclosure must also be separate from the purchase contract or agreement between the parties and must be printed in bold type with a font size of at least 12 points. In the event a wholesaler fails to provide proper notice to the seller, the seller may cancel the purchase contract at any time before the close of escrow without penalty, giving the wholesaler 30 days to return any earnest money or deposits to the seller. Wholesalers who do not clearly disclose their role or properly inform the seller may also face disciplinary action from the Ohio Superintendent of Real Estate. This can include penalties such as suspension or revocation of their real estate license, as well as potential civil liability, monetary damages, and responsibility for attorneys’ fees.

Legal Updates for Special Education Law

Ohio Law Does Not Conflict with the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act

April 1, 2025

The Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) oversees Ohio’s implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), a federal law that entitles children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). In a recent lawsuit, DEW argued that a state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an IDEA claim because the state’s administrate code conflicted with the IDEA and, therefore, was preempted by federal law. State ex rel. Governing Bd. of Warren Cnty. Educational Serv. Ctr. v. Ohio Dept. of Education & Workforce, 2024-Ohio-6061 (12th Dist.). The specific conflict advanced by DEW was that the IDEA complaint procedure applied to any “public agency, while Adm.Code 3301-51-05(K)(5) and (6) is more circumscribed by applying only to a disabled child's ‘school district of residence.’ ” At the trial level, the court disagreed with DEW’s argument, holding that IDEA complaint procedures set forth in 34 C.F.R. 300.152 and 34 C.F.R. 300.153 and those set forth by Adm.Code 3301-51-05(K)(5) and (6) are “virtually identical,” with the exception that the C.F.R. uses the term “public agency” while the Adm.Code uses the term “school district of residence.”  The Twelfth District Court of Appeals agreed that Ohio’s complaint procedures were not in conflict with federal law. The appeal court explained that the IDEA and 34 C.F.R. 300.152 and 300.153 were crafted with general language to accommodate the variations of 50 states’ educational systems. As such, it makes sense that C.F.R. used the broad term “public agency” in the IDEA regulations. Adm.Code 3301-51-05(K)(5) and (6) do not truncate the IDEA or limit its protections; thus, they are not in conflict. In summary, the IDEA does not preempt Ohio’s administrate code regarding the procedure for filing an IDEA claim.    Legal Update for Special Education Law – April 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

On the Pulse… Profile of the Intellectual Property, Technology & Media Litigation Practice Group

The Intellectual Property, Technology & Media Practice provides comprehensive, end-to-end litigation and counseling services to national and global insurance carriers. We are committed to delivering a disciplined, cost-effective, and creative defense tailored to each client's needs. Our attorneys combine deep litigation experience with technical and scientific backgrounds, enabling us to understand our clients' technologies and effectively communicate complex concepts to adversaries, judges, and juries. We also assist clients with risk management, pre-suit dispute resolution strategies, and, when necessary, the litigation of claims and complaints in courts across all 50 states through trial. In addition, we work closely with our eDiscovery team to address complex issues involving electronically stored information, including data preservation, electronic discovery, computer imaging, and allegations of spoliation. These issues are often critical to the intellectual property and technology matters we handle every day, and our integrated approach helps clients navigate them efficiently and effectively. Our attorneys represent clients in patent infringement, copyright, trademark, and trade secret disputes in the state and federal courts in jurisdictions throughout the United States. Many of our clients also face highly technical professional liability claims involving computer systems, software, cybersecurity, data management, and other technology-related services. We take a proactive approach to managing risk and controlling exposure, working with clients and their insurers to develop effective pre-suit strategies and avoid litigation whenever possible through mediation, settlement conferences, and other alternative dispute resolution methods. When litigation cannot be avoided, we remain steadfast in serving our clients' legal and business objectives, recognizing the significant costs and operational burdens that complex litigation can impose. We work closely with insurance carriers to help protect our clients' brands, intellectual property, and business interests while delivering a thorough and cost-effective defense. We additionally maintain a strong Media Practice. Our attorneys have extensive experience handling First Amendment and media-related disputes, including claims involving defamation, libel, privacy rights, injunctions, gag orders, and prior restraints on speech. Clients benefit from our practical litigation strategies and thoughtful approach to managing matters that often attract significant public attention and scrutiny. With 19 offices throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Florida, Ohio, and Connecticut, we maintain a strong presence across the East Coast. We serve as national counsel for insurance carriers and have handled matters throughout the United States, from Hawaii to Washington, and virtually every jurisdiction in between. Our national reputation ensures that our clients receive not just the best skilled legal representation but also practical business-minded guidance in determining the proper legal response to all claims and lawsuits. David chairs both the Privacy and Data Security Practice and the Intellectual Property, Technology and Media Litigation Practice. He may be reached at djshannon@mdwcg.com.

News

106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America

Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 106 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for this recognition. Additionally, four of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” awards in their respective practice areas and demographic regions. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. For more information, please visit https://www.bestlawyers.com/. OUR 2027 LAWYERS OF THE YEAR Harrisburg, PA Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers Compensation Law - Employers Roseland, NJ Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA Philadelphia, PA Nicholas D. Bowers, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Josh J. T. Byrne, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Jefferey J. Chomko, Insurance Law James H. Cole, Insurance Law John J. Delany III, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Laurianne Falcone, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John P. Gonzales, Employment Law - Management John Hare, Appellate Practice Daniel D. Krebbs, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Michele Punturi, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Bradley D. Remick, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Andrea Cicero Rock, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robin M. Romano, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Daniel J. Ryan, Jr., Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Gary M. Samms, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Christopher N. Santoro, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation -Defendants Josh D. Scheets, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Robert P. Schenk, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robert E. Smith, Insurance Law Robin Snyder, Litigation - Health Care Michael L. Turner, Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Claire Breaux Ventola, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Melissa Devich Cochran, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants  John F. Deasy, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Daniel W. Deitrick, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Douglas C. LaSota, Litigation - Construction; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Joseph V. Lesinski, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants   Christian D. Marquis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia A. Monahan, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Patrick T. Reilly, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Brett C. Shear, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Teresa O. Sirianni, Education Law; Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment Stuart Sostmann, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Scranton, PA Sarah E. Argo, Litigation - Insurance Michael J. Connolly, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Matthew Keris, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants John T. McGrath, Jr., Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants William J. McPartland, Insurance Law John R. Nealon, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Victoria Scanlon, Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Michael A. Sebastian, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Thomas A. Specht, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Suzanne Tighe, Litigation Insurance Harrisburg , PA Casey Alan Coyle, Administrative/Regulatory Law; Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation Brittany E. Bakshi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Shannon P. Fellin, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Allison Krupp, Insurance Law John R. Ninosky, Litigation – Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers King of Prussia, PA  Michael L. Detweiler, Construction Law Joseph L. Hoynoski III, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Gregory J. Kelley, Construction Law, Litigation - Construction Anthony Natale III, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Francis X. Wickersham, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers A. Judd Woytek, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers Erie, PA Patrick M. Carey, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Joel M. Snavely, Health Care Law; Insurance Law New Haven, CT Michael Wrona, Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Bankruptcy  Mount Laurel, NJ David D. Blake, Litigation - Insurance Barbara Davis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lynne Nahmani, Litigation - Health Care John H. Osorio, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John L. Slimm, Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants Roseland, NJ Robert T. Evers, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Julia Klubenspies, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard C. Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia M. McDonagh, Appellate Practice Sunny Sparano, Litigation - Construction Randall S. Watts, Health Care Law New York, NY Tonya M. Lindsey, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Tampa, FL Michael Archibald, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lindsay G. McCormick, Litigation – Construction Orlando, FL Thomas F. Brown, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Dante C. Rohr, Commercial Litigation Fort Lauderdale, FL Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Appellate Practice Patrick M. Delong, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Jacksonville, FL  Heather Byrer Carbone, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Linda Wagner Farrell, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Elizabeth B. Ferguson, Litigation - Construction James P. Hanratty, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Wilmington, DE Sarah B. Cole, Litigation - Insurance Benjamin K. Durstein, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Maria R. Granaudo, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants  Keri L. Morris-Johnston, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Cincinnati, OH Timothy B. Schenkel, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David E. Williamson, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Cleveland, OH Vincent E. Cononico, Litigation – Insurance, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Jillian L. Dinehart, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David J. Fagnilli, Insurance Law Jason P. Ferrante, Health Care Law, Litigation - Health Care Andrew H. Isakoff, Transportation Law Leslie M. Jenny, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendant OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS: ONES TO WATCH Jacksonville, FL Sean J. Reeves, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Orlando, FL Carolin A. Pacheco, Insurance Law Mount Laurel Stacey Gorin, Insurance Law Melville, NY Kimberly Gitlin, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Matthew A. Gray, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Philadelphia, PA Holli K. Archer, Health Care Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law Emily Pritchyk, Commercial Litigation; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Taylor E. Kosko, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Alana Staniszewski, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Michael D. Winsko, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants; Transportation Law King of Prussia, PA Richard Lechette, Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

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.

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.

Thought Leadership

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP Dana Gittleman (Philadelphia) authored the article, “The Importance of Memorializing Settlement Terms," appearing in the PLUS Blog on April 27, 2026. In the article, Dana discusses a new Pennsylvania Superior Court decision that shows how overlooked or undocumented terms can unravel even routine negotiations, especially when parties have differing expectations or one side is unrepresented. Jordan Mazzoni (Scranton) authored the article, “The Best Defense is Already in the File Documentation in Civil Rights Litigation," published on PLUS Blog on July 27. The article discusses how documentation is an essential defense to public entity & civil rights litigation. SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS ​John L. Slimm (Mount Laurel) moderated and presented on claims and defenses involving lawsuits against the plaintiffs' bar at the 2026 Legal Malpractice Update for the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education. The seminar offered practical strategies to prevent ethical grievances and legal malpractice, along with sharing expert insights on issues from electronic payments and fee splitting to the impact of AI. ​Heather Carbone (Jacksonville) was a panelist for a webinar hosted by The Workers’ Compensation Claims Professionals (WCCP) Association. As part of the “Meet the Experts” Series, the speakers addressed “Afterthoughts that Undermine a Successful Mediation,” highlighting the pitfalls and challenges of underprepared or unprepared mediation participants. A. Judd Woytek (King of Prussia) joined a panel at the CLM Alliance (Claims and Litigation Management Alliance) Work Comp Conference in Nashville to present "We See You How Employee Engagement Enhances Work Comp Outcomes." Judd and his fellow panelists discussed the positive impact of employee engagement on claim outcomes, return-to-work timelines, and overall claim costs. ​Joe Lesinski (Pittsburgh), Jim Cole (Philadelphia), Matt Flanagan (New York), and Adam Fogarty (Mt. Laurel) presented several continuing education (CE) programs to claims professionals for our client. The team hosted two one-hour panel discussions on “The Art of Mediation", attended by more than 80 claims professionals. In the afternoon Adam Fogarty and Joe Lesinski presented a CE program on “The Fundamentals of Premises Liability in New Jersey and Pennsylvania" while Matt Flanagan and Jim Cole led a presentation on “Trends in Claims" against attorneys and the evolving issues impacting the legal profession. ​Julia Klubenspies (Roseland) was invited to speak to the 2026 class of incoming resident physicians at The Valley Hospital on ways to reduce the risk of being named in litigation. ​Jon Cross (Philadelphia) and Sara Mazzolla (Roseland) spoke at the 5th Annual ideal3 Summit in Minneapolis on “Information Gathering for New Claims and Prevention of Spoliation." The program explored the ethical and legal obligations surrounding the collection and preservation of evidence once a claim is anticipated. Sara Mazzolla (Roseland) presented at the annual Roller Skating Association Conference on "The Pros and Cons of Waivers in Your Rink," sharing insights on the use of liability waivers as a risk management tool for skating rink operators and discussing considerations that may impact their effectiveness. James Hanratty and Erica Cagan (both of Jacksonville) presented at the Florida Defense Lawyers Association's Florida Liability Claims Conference. Their session, "Supporting the Next Generation: Connecting with Associates," explored communication best practices from the perspectives of both a senior shareholder and a newer associate. Lindsay McCormick (Tampa) was a panelist at the West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar in Anaheim. Lindsay's session, "It May Not Be All Wrapped Up with Your OCIP/CCIP," examined key considerations surrounding Owner-Controlled and Contractor-Controlled Insurance Programs. Attendees gained insight into risk management strategies and coverage issues impacting construction defect litigation and related claims. Gary M. Samms (King of Prussia and Philadelphia) was a featured speaker at the American Legal Connections (ALC) 2026 Seventh Annual Healthcare Symposium in Atlanta, Georgia. Gary joined a panel discussion titled “The Modern Plaintiff Machine.” Designed for medical professional liability defense attorneys, claims professionals, underwriters, carriers, and health system risk executives, the symposium addressed some of the most pressing challenges in today’s healthcare litigation landscape. Josh Byrne (Philadelphia) was a featured panelist at the Philadelphia Bar Association CLE program, "Ethics & Legal Malpractice Avoidance." The program provided a comprehensive overview of strategies for avoiding legal malpractice, including ethical considerations, client communication best practices, and common pitfalls that can lead to malpractice claims. Casey Coyle (Harrisburg and Philadelphia) presented "Recent Civil Law Decisions and Civil Rule Updates" at the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges in Hershey. The session provided attendees with insights into recent developments in Pennsylvania civil law and examined updates to the rules governing civil practice, helping practitioners stay informed on significant changes affecting litigation and courtroom procedure. PUBLISHED WORKS Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia) and Alesia S. Sulock (Philadelphia) authored the article, “Whither the Private Reprimand," published in The Legal Intelligencer on July 22, 2026. In the article, Josh and Alesia examine the notable absence of private reprimands issued by the Pennsylvania disciplinary authorities in 2025, discussing the important role that informal admonitions and private reprimands have historically played in addressing attorney misconduct and considering what this trend may signal for the future of attorney discipline in Pennsylvania. ​Blake Hood (Jacksonville) authored the article, “Fla. Workers' Comp Physician Dispensing Ruling Could Produce New Legislative Fight," published on August 5 in Insurance Journal . The article discusses Florida's First District Court of Appeal's decision in Publix Super Markets, Inc., et al. v. Department of Financial Services, et al., holding 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. Kimberly Kanoff Berman and Seth Altman (Fort Lauderdale) authored the article, “A Unified, Single Claim for Damages Requires Apportionment in a Joint Proposal: What the Decision in 'Trace Elements' Means for Property Insurance Claims,” published on August 6 in the Daily Business Review. The article analyzes the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Trace Elements v. MacKensen and examines its implications for property insurance claims in Florida, particularly regarding the apportionment of damages in joint settlement proposals. RECOGNITION Tiere Phillips (Pittsburgh) was elected to the Allegheny County Bar Association’s Judicial Committee for a Diverse Seat. As one of only three attorneys elected to this role, Tiere will help ensure fairness and equality in representation during judicial evaluations and recommendations for election and reelection in Allegheny County. Steven A. Johnston (Roseland) received the “Pride of Essex County Award” at the 2026 Essex County LGBTQ+ Pride Celebration on June 17 at the Essex County Martin Luther King, Jr. Justice Building in Newark. Hosted in conjunction with the Essex County Office of LGBTQ+ Affairs and the Essex County Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning Advisory Board, Steven was recognized for his service to the community and his support of equality for members of the LGBTQ+ community. Jason Banonis (King of Prussia) was honored with the Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s 2026 Attorney of the Year Award at the organization’s annual conference.  A longtime leader and contributor to the organization, Jason was recognized for his dedication and service.

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. 

Ellen C. Bodenmiller Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Tampa Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Ellen C. Bodenmiller Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Tampa Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

On the Pulse…Recent Appellate Victories

Kimberly Berman (Fort Lauderdale) and Sontho SaintGermain (Orlando) succeeded in obtaining an affirmance by the Second District Court of Appeal of a final judgment in a slip-and-fall premises liability matter on behalf of a business establishment and property owner. The plaintiff was a business invitee who sued the property owner for negligence after she fell while riding her electric bicycle through its landscaped parking lot. During discovery, the plaintiff claimed the fall occurred while she was traversing through a section “covered heavily in leaves” though she could not identify how she fell nor whether there were any objects or foreign substances causing her fall. The property owner moved for summary judgment, asserting the accumulation of leaves on the parking lot was an open and obvious, naturally occurring condition that could not constitute a dangerous condition to impose liability on a property owner. The court granted summary judgment in the property owner’s favor. After oral argument, the Second District Court affirmed per curiam the final judgment in the property owner’s favor. Carrie Collier v. Cars MTI-4 L.P. d/b/a Lazydays RV Resort, No. 2D2025-1980 (Fla. 2d DCA May 13, 2026). Kimberly House (Philadelphia) succeeded in obtaining a victory in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania that reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for reinstatement of the jury verdict which was originally won by Gary Samms (King of Prussia/Philadelphia). (The underlying medical malpractice case involved claims seeking more than $5 million in damages for serious eye injuries including a detached retina and macular hole.) At trial, the jury returned a defense verdict finding that the defendant’s negligence was not a cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial judge granted the plaintiff’s post-trial motions and ordered a new trial solely on the issue of damages. The Superior Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that causation was not disputed and that the jury’s finding of no causation was against the weight of the evidence. Busanic v. Premier Orthopaedic & Sports Medicine Physical Therapy, 2026 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1140 (Pa. Super. Apr. 28, 2026). Suzanne Tighe (Scranton/Philadelphia), Allison Krupp (Harrisburg)  and Christopher Woodward (Harrisburg) succeeded in obtaining an affirmance by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania of a non-jury trial decision in favor of an insurance company. Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Pennsylvania Bad Faith Statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8371, following a statutory arbitration award in excess of the available underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. The trial court held the plaintiffs failed to prove bad faith in the handling of the UIM claim and entered judgment in favor of the insurer. The Superior Court rejected the plaintiffs’ contentions that the trial court misapplied the applicable bad faith law, set forth in Rancosky v. Washington Nat’l Ins. Co. 170 A.3d 364 (Pa. 2017), and affirmed the trial court. The Superior Court further held that plaintiffs’ waived their requests for judgment notwithstanding verdict (JNOV) and new trial by failing to properly preserve these issues at trial and in post-trial motions. Brown v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n, 2026 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1393 (May 27, 2026). *Results do not guarantee a similar result.

Result

Federal Statute Declared Constitutional

In this products liability case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court and upheld the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which resulted in judgment as a matter of law for the defendant manufacturer.