Results

We successfully defended an appeal from a jury verdict previously secured by members of our Lawyers’ Professional Liability Department in favor of the firm’s client in a legal malpractice case. The plaintiffs initially asserted multiple tort claims and a claim under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, which were dismissed by the trial court upon partial grant of the defense’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case proceeded to trial on a remaining breach of contract claim, resulting in a defense verdict. On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the trial court’s rulings on both the motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion in limine related to evidentiary exclusions. The Pennsylvania Superior Court unanimously affirmed the trial court’s rulings, holding that the tort claims were time-barred and that the plaintiffs had waived their evidentiary argument by failing to properly develop it in their appellate brief.

Defense award obtained on behalf of our client, a registered investment advisor, in a FINRA arbitration involving alleged mismanagement and lack of transparency concerning a Donor Advised Fund. The arbitration panel denied the claims in their entirety and recommended expungement of the claim from our client's registration records.  

We received a defense verdict in a nursing home malpractice matter involving the development and progression of pressure injuries the decedent experienced during her time in a nursing home. As a result of these injuries, the plaintiff claimed damages, including but not limited to pain, suffering and death. We successfully cited the resident’s significant comorbidities and the noncompliance with pressure reduction measures and nutritional support. 

In a case where an insurance broker faced claims of professional negligence, Carol VanderWoude (Philadelphia) successfully defended the plaintiff’s appeal from a verdict obtained by Tim Ventura and Dana Gittleman (Philadelphia). The verdict against our client, an independent insurance broker, was well below the lost value of UIM coverage (i.e., $1 million), which the plaintiff sought to recover based on an alleged breach of the professional standard of care in failing to procure an endorsement for $ 1 million in UIM coverage on the plaintiff’s decedent’s commercial auto policy.  The verdict is notable because, at trial, the client gave unexpected testimony which impacted liability, and when confronted with the client’s new trial testimony, our standard of care expert conceded a breach of the professional standard of care. Still, causation/damages were contested, and it was disputed at trial that the plaintiff’s decedent would have actually received $1 million in coverage. Tim elicited testimony on cross-examination of the plaintiff’s expert to show that there was no evidence establishing the insurer would have provided additional UIM coverage even if the endorsement had been purchased.  Prior to trial the parties entered into a stipulation stating that damages were capped at the value of the lost coverage, $1 million. Plaintiff’s counsel challenged the low verdict on various grounds, focusing on the fact that our expert conceded a breach of a standard of care based on the client’s unexpected trial testimony. He argued that, as a matter of law, the damages amount was the lost value of the coverage and the verdict should be increased to $1 million. The trial court agreed with our arguments, raised in opposition to the plaintiff’s post-trial motions, that the low verdict amount was supported by the record and that the plaintiff’s requests for post-trial relief were otherwise waived for various reasons.  The Superior Court affirmed in a unanimous decision.   

We won a defense verdict in a legal malpractice case arising from an underlying civil rights claim. The plaintiff was arrested in August 2015 following a physical altercation with her daughter and her daughter’s friends. The plaintiff alleged that, while she was being searched at the Philadelphia Police Detention Unit, a City employee struck her, causing her to fall into a “split” and suffer a hamstring avulsion. The defendant attorneys represented the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the City. The plaintiff was never able, during the underlying case, to identify the employee who allegedly assaulted her. She did not respond to communications from the defendant attorneys regarding the arbitration award and the appellate deadline; thus, no appeal was filed. During the legal malpractice trial, we presented evidence that the plaintiff could not have won the underlying case-within-the-case because she lacked corroborating evidence of the alleged assault. We also presented evidence that the plaintiff could not prove damages arising from the alleged injury. The court agreed and entered a defense verdict following a bench trial.

Obtained dismissal of claims in a civil rights action brought against their attorney client in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff brought claims for Deprivation of Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983), Conspiracy Against Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985), and Civil Conspiracy against their client. Jake and Josh filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Magistrate Judge agreed, issuing a report and recommendation for the claims to be dismissed, which the District Judge then adopted as the Court’s decision. No timely appeal was taken.

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.

We obtained summary judgement on behalf of a homeowner in a 10-plaintiff negligence action arising from a house fire. In granting summary judgement, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas agreed that the plaintiffs’ failure to secure a cause and origin expert was fatal to their case as the fire was alleged to be electrical in nature and, thus, outside the purview of the average juror.

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of several Philadelphia narcotics police officers in a Section 1983 malicious prosecution and fabrication of evidence lawsuit. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the case, with prejudice, finding the record was barren of any fabricated evidence by any of the defendant officers that was ever used in or influenced any criminal proceeding against the plaintiff, the officers possessed probable cause to charge the plaintiff, and the plaintiff tendered no evidence of an underlying constitutional violation.   

We won a very hard-fought motion for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute in a matter that is now 10 years old. Suzanne won oral argument to dismiss the suit, based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case, by proving both actual prejudice to the client, a psychologist, and an inexcusable seven-year delay in any activity by the plaintiff. This medical malpractice claim was brought in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and was related to a psychological evaluation conducted of the plaintiff’s three children, whom he physically and psychologically abused for years.   

We successfully secured summary judgment in a product liability case involving an “exploding” wine bottle. Our client was the distributor of the bottle and was brought into the case as a third-party defendant. The plaintiff testified that on Thanksgiving Day, she attempted to open the bottle with the handle of a wooden spoon when the bottle unexpectedly and suddenly exploded in her hands. The plaintiff brought a product liability claim, asserting defects with the design of the bottle in using unusually thin glass prone to breakage. As the plaintiff did not produce any liability expert reports, we were able to argue that expert testimony was necessary for the plaintiff to prove her case, as the subject matter was one involving special skills and training not common to the ordinary layperson.   

We obtained a defense verdict in a Bucks County medical malpractice case where we represented a leading orthopaedic surgeon from a world-class orthopaedic institution. The plaintiff alleged failure to diagnose compartment syndrome in a 19-year-old who broke his ankle skateboarding. The case was transferred to us just two weeks before trial.

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.   

We received a defense verdict on behalf of an anesthesiologist after a six-day trial in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs had contended the anesthesiologist failed to deal with internal bleeding and blood pressure issues and failed to communicate with the surgeon during a Cesarean section and in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU), leading to the plaintiff almost bleeding out and causing the loss of her uterus during an emergency hysterectomy. The matter involved seriously conflicting experts and was a well-tried case by all parties. Fortunately, the jury was receptive to the defense arguments that, in fact, the doctor not only complied with the standard of care but exceeded it.   

We obtained summary judgment in a Section 1983 substantive due process claim involving a Philadelphia police officer. The officer had taken a photo of the plaintiff’s son after he attempted suicide by jumping off a bridge, and the photo was later circulated on social media. The plaintiff alleged that circulation of the photo violated her substantive due process privacy rights, and she also asserted a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. One week before trial began, the Honorable Mark Kearney, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, held, although the plaintiff possessed a viable privacy right, that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident; therefore, the court granted qualified immunity to the officer. Additionally, the court held the plaintiff failed to present competent expert opinion evidence establishing her emotional distress and, therefore, dismissed the state tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.   

We successfully defended the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) in a wrongful death and survival case in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The case involved the death of a pedestrian, Vincent Boykin, struck by a SEPTA bus, with the plaintiff, his father, disputing the Philadelphia Medical Examiner’s suicide ruling. The defense presented a forensic psychiatrist’s testimony confirming Mr. Boykin’s high suicide risk. Although SEPTA was found 40% negligent, the decedent’s 60% negligence barred recovery of damages.   

Obtained a defense verdict for our client, a global automobile manufacturer, in a contract dispute in Bucks County, PA. In 2021, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff purchased a new vehicle for $37,000. Seven months later, the car was involved in a crash caused by the plaintiff's daughter. Repairs for collision damage, which are not covered under the vehicle’s express written warranty, were delayed due to global supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic. Despite the automobile manufacturer’s efforts to locate, obtain, and expedite delivery of repair parts to the collision repair shop, it took seven months to fully complete the repairs. The plaintiff alleged that the manufacturer violated the implied warranty of merchantability under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and breached the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, citing the repair delays as the basis for the claims. Ultimately, the court returned a defense verdict, rejecting the plaintiff’s claims.

We obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a public transportation system in a Wrongful Death and Survival case in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The case involved the death of a  pedestrian, struck by a bus, with the plaintiff, his father, disputing the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's suicide ruling. The defense presented a forensic psychiatrist's testimony confirming the deceased’s high suicide risk. Although the transportation system was found 40% negligent, the decedent's 60% negligence barred recovery of damages. The claim was further limited by statutory caps applicable to Commonwealth entities.

We won summary judgment before the Honorable Anthony Verwey in Chester County, PA. The plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (PAUTPCPL) against the defendants over the installation of an allegedly defective storm water remediation system. Summary judgment was sought on the grounds that the plaintiff could not prove damages without an expert. The court entered judgment in favor of the defendants, finding the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim could not proceed without expert support and the PAUTPCPL claims failed for lack of demonstrated damages.

We received a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of an orthopedic and physical therapy practice in a case where the plaintiff’s demand was $5 million. The jury deliberated for approximately six hours and had to decide whether the injuries sustained by the plaintiff  (detached retina, macular hole and other related eye injuries resulting in five surgeries in two years) were related to any negligence by his clients. We were able to prove, through aggressive cross-examination, that the injuries were not related to any negligence on the part of the practice, even though they occurred while the patient was being monitored and treated in physical therapy. 

We successfully defended on appeal the trial court’s grant of compulsory nonsuit in a legal malpractice action following the trial court’s rulings on various motions in limine. The trial court granted our clients’ motions in limine to preclude the plaintiff from introducing into evidence that its attorney sued the wrong parties, that its attorney obtained an uncollectable judgment, and that the plaintiff would have prevailed in a lawsuit against other parties. Following the motion in limine rulings, trial counsel moved for nonsuit—arguing the plaintiff could not carry its burden of proof without the precluded evidence. On appeal, the plaintiff argued the trial court’s evidentiary rulings violated the law of the case set forth in the Superior Court’s decision reversing the trial court’s order sustaining our clients’ preliminary objections and dismissing the amended complaint, and that the trial court erred in granting the motions in limine. The Superior Court rejected both arguments and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to remove compulsory nonsuit. 

We obtained a reversal in the Pennsylvania Superior Court of the trial court’s denial of preliminary objections to venue. We successfully moved in the trial court for certification of the ruling pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(b) so that an immediate appeal from the interlocutory ruling could be taken, and we subsequently prevailed on appeal. The litigation arose from a helicopter accident that occurred in Afghanistan. Both plaintiffs, husband and wife, resided in Arizona. Our client is a Delaware corporation located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, that refurbished the helicopter. The codefendant corporation leased the helicopter to the plaintiff-husband’s employer, which was organized and principally operates in Montana. The plaintiffs’ primary focus in seeking to establish venue was on our client and, in particular, on the fact that it purchased two fabric interiors from a Philadelphia vendor. The Superior Court determined that the business dealings of our client did not constitute actual business conducted in Philadelphia County. It stressed that “doing business with a Philadelphia County company does not amount to doing business in Philadelphia County if the obtained goods, services, or personnel are utilized elsewhere to further the defendant’s business activities.” As to the codefendant, the Superior Court concluded the limited venue evidence pointed to a separate but related corporate entity, and that the evidence failed to show the co-defendant regularly conducts business in Philadelphia County. Because there was no evidence to support the imputation of a separate entity’s contacts with Philadelphia on the co-defendant, venue as to the co-defendant was also improper.

We won a defense verdict in a complex New Jersey medical malpractice trial, defeating claims that surgical negligence caused severe complications, after undermining the plaintiff’s case through expert cross-examination and strong defense testimony. We obtained a defense verdict in a complex medical malpractice case after a two-week jury trial in New Jersey. The elderly plaintiff claimed his posterior lumbar laminectomy for decompression was negligently performed. It was alleged that care failures in the performance of surgery caused a loss of bowel and bladder control that ultimately required an irreversible colostomy and placement of a suprapubic catheter, as well as subsequent infections requiring extended medical intervention and rehabilitative care. The plaintiffs also made a claim for lack of informed consent for an alleged failure of the physician to inform the plaintiff regarding the risks of the subject surgery, which was thrown out by the court at trial. The defense was successful in obtaining favorable admissions from the plaintiff’s expert during cross-examination, and the strength of the defense’s standard of care expert testimony was convincing to the jury, resulting in a defense verdict. 

We obtained a defense verdict after a week-long jury trial in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas in a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff alleged she sustained a bowel perforation injury in the course of a robotic-laparoscopic hysterectomy. During the course of the procedure, a general surgeon was called in to evaluate the bowels for injuries. There were no injuries found, so the procedure was completed, and the patient was discharged the following day. Two days later, the patient returned in critically ill condition, and a bowel perforation in the sigmoid colon was identified. The plaintiff alleged the health care providers negligently failed to detect the injury during the hysterectomy. After the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants.

We obtained dismissal of wrongful use of civil proceedings claims brought against our clients, two attorneys who were alleged to have wrongfully prosecuted a professional negligence claim against the plaintiff, a real estate agent. The plaintiff would not accept any settlement that was less than policy limits. After five years of litigation, the court granted our summary judgment motion, concluding that the plaintiff failed to adduce facts that would reflect that the attorneys prosecuted the underlying action in a grossly negligent manner, or without probable cause. 

Marshall Dennehey’s trial and appellate attorneys were successful in their representation of a national home improvement retail corporation’s tool and truck rental division. Handling the case at both the trial and appellate levels, the defense was successful in convincing the New Jersey appellate court to affirm the trial court’s decision on July 23, 2024. At the trial level, the judge granted our motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the case. The plaintiff had rented a flatbed truck in 2018 to move a cabinet he had just purchased. He alleged that a store employee gave him a set of ramps to use in the truck, but while doing so, they moved and he fell, sustaining serious and permanent injury to his back. The plaintiff alleged he later returned to the store and was told that he had been given the wrong ramps. The panel said that the record included no actual evidence that the ramp did not fit the truck beyond the employee’s saying it was the wrong ramp, or that the ramp slipped because it was incompatible with the truck. Even in his testimony, the panel said the plaintiff did not actually identify any physical cause for the ramp to move. “The dearth of evidence establishing the manner and cause of the slip or slide of the ramp rendered it impossible for the jury to make a reasoned determination as to whether defendant’s purported negligence proximately caused plaintiff’s fall and injuries,” the panel said. The court, therefore, affirmed the case on appeal. 

We secured summary judgment in a premises liability case in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, dismissing all claims against a national sporting goods retailer. The plaintiff claimed he slipped and fell on a slippery substance inside a the store while testing out bicycles. The plaintiff and his wife admitted that after he fell, they did not inspect the floor and quickly left the store. Months later, and after filing suit, the plaintiff and an engineer visited the store and claimed that there was an open can of bicycle grease in the area where the fall had occurred. Based on this evidence alone, the plaintiff theorized, through an expert report, that he must have fallen on bicycle grease negligently left on the floor by the store staff. Summary judgment was sought on the grounds that no witnesses to the fall ever actually identified any substance on the floor, and that the expert’s opinion was based on pure speculation. The court agreed and dismissed all claims against our client.

We won a defense verdict in a high-exposure product liability trial, defeating claims that a client’s hair dye caused bladder cancer. The verdict was reached after a two-and-a-half week jury trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiffs’ claim was that the hair dye made by global men’s hair dye manufacturer caused the husband’s bladder cancer. Prior to trial there was a significant demand, but the jury wholly rejected the plaintiffs’ negligence and strict liability claims. Background: The plaintiff was a part-time barber in Reading and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from 1994–2008. On occasion, he used the defendant’s hair dye on his customers and himself. He also worked full-time as a book binder at various printing companies. In August of 2016 he was diagnosed with bladder cancer. He filed suit against the manufacturer, claiming that their hair dye was contaminated with the chemical 4-aminobiphenyl (4-ABP), which is a known carcinogen. Numerous expert witnesses were called by both sides—toxicologists, epidemiologists, organic/anylytical chemists, urologists and occupation physicians. The defense denied that the hair dye product contained 4-ABP because its manufacturing process is conducted in such a manner that it would not create 4-ABP. This was supported via corporate witnesses and multiple experts. After one hour and 13 minutes of deliberations, the jury found that the defendant was not negligent and their product was not defective. Read about this verdict in The Legal Intelligencer (subscription required): Pa. Jury Rejects Claims Linking 'Just For Men' Hair Dye to Cancer."  

We secured summary judgment in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, where the plaintiff filed suit claiming he contracted a fungal infection from staying at the defendant’s hotel. The plaintiff produced an expert microbiologist’s report, in addition to his treating physician’s records, in support of his claims. Summary judgment was sought on the grounds that the plaintiff’s expert was not competent enough to identify a specific fungus from photographs of the hotel room and the treating physician’s records were equivocal as to the cause of the plaintiff’s infection. Judge Arthur Zulick found the plaintiff’s microbiologist’s opinion speculative, as the microbiologist did not conduct an inspection of the hotel, obtain fungal samples or perform any lab testing. The judge further held that the plaintiff’s diagnoses of a fungal infection was not sufficiently supported by his treating doctor’s diagnoses. As a result, Judge Zulick entered judgment in favor of the defendant.

We secured an Appellate Division decision affirming the trial court’s order dismissing a fraud and fraudulent concealment case filed against various attorneys and broker dealers. In its decision, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court’s orders and opinions dismissing the case based on entire controversy, collateral estoppel and litigation privilege grounds. In this comprehensive decision, the Appellate Division held that the plaintiff’s claims were mirrored claims that had been fully litigated in a prior proceeding, where our clients either represented the litigants in the first case or were directly involved in the first case as defendants.