Results

The decision, which reversed the trial court and Superior Court, reinstated a jury verdict in favor of our clients. Following a defense verdict, the trial court awarded a new trial based on a question posed by defense counsel, who was not a Marshall Dennehey attorney. The Superior Court affirmed the award of a new trial, but the Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the defense verdict on the basis that defense counsel’s question was neither improper nor prejudicial.

A FINRA arbitration panel recommended the expungement of two separate customer complaints from a financial advisor’s public record.  Both complaints involved allegedly unsuitable sales of alternative investments.

We successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf of a Philadelphia-based ice cream shop. The claimant sustained a serious ankle fracture after a slip and fall in the shop’s freezer. We utilized the treating physician to certify the claimant’s full and complete recovery from the ankle fracture and established that there were no residual maladies or disability stemming from the incident.

A FINRA arbitration panel granted a financial advisor and his supervisor’s motion to dismiss a FINRA arbitration on the basis that the Claimant previously brought multiple claims regarding the same securities related dispute against the broker-dealer, who was not a party to this arbitration.  

The claimant filed a claim petition alleging that she sustained a contusion to the back of her head, a concussion, bilateral shoulder pain and neck pain. The judge found the claimant credible and that an incident did occur in the course and scope of her employment. However, the judge also found the employer’s medical expert credible. The employer’s medical expert found that the claimant was fully recovered as of the date of the Independent Medical Examination. This limited the receipt of indemnity and medical to fourteen months, rather than an ongoing claim.

Our attorneys secured a voluntary dismissal on behalf of an aircraft parts supplier in an asbestos mesothelioma case. The plaintiff alleged he was diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of exposure to numerous asbestos products while doing home renovation work with his father in the 1940s; while in the U.S. Air Force working as an aircraft mechanic between 1953 to 1957; as a self-employed painter between 1958 and 1960; and as a civilian aircraft maintenance crew chief at the Willow Grove Air Force Base between 1959 to 1968. The plaintiff contended our client was the exclusive supplier of asbestos-containing fire sleeves for military aircraft hose assemblies that he worked with almost on a daily basis while at Willow Grove. Based upon the plaintiff’s description of the product during his trial video and discovery depositions, our client took the position that the product could not have been supplied by them. All other defendants either settled or were dismissed, and our client took a no-pay position. As the case neared trial, plaintiff’s counsel presented evidence as to why the product identified by the plaintiff was accurate and, therefore, why the case should be settled. Through a combination of the plaintiff’s testimony, our witness’s prior testimony, select portions of catalog pages and drawings from the aircraft the plaintiff worked on, and catalog pages from our client’s catalogs, plaintiff’s counsel was persuaded to voluntarily dismiss our client shortly before trial was to begin. 

Our attorneys obtained dismissal of claims against a real estate agent arising from the agent’s representation of a buyer in connection with the purchase of a home in Philadelphia. Following the purchase of the property, the buyer discovered numerous undisclosed issues with the home and commenced suit against the seller and the seller’s agent. In turn, the seller’s agent joined our client, the buyer’s agent, alleging it was actually the buyer’s agent who should be liable on the buyer’s claims for negligence, violation of the Pennsylvania Seller’s Disclosure Law, breach of contract, negligent representation and fraud. On preliminary objections, we argued that the plaintiff’s conclusory allegations did not give rise to valid claims, that a buyer’s agent cannot be liable under the Seller’s Disclosure Law without actual knowledge of a material defect which was not disclosed, that the joinder complaint did not adequately allege that the buyer’s agent made any misrepresentations, and that there were no allegations adequate to suggest the buyer’s agent breached his statutory duties under the law. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas agreed, sustaining the preliminary objections and dismissing the joinder complaint. 

We successfully defended a regional energy efficiency service agency in a claim petition wherein the claimant attempted to use the COVID-19 pandemic to support payments of disability. The claimant alleged that a work-related auto accident disabled him from employment at the time he was subject to an economic lay-off due to the pandemic. The defense convinced the court that at the time of layoff the claimant was capable of performing his pre-injury job duties despite alleged restrictions due to the motor vehicle accident. The judge also found the claimant to have made a full and complete recovery from the work injury during the pandemic lay-off, and the claimant demonstrated no good reason for his failure to return to work once the pandemic restrictions dissipated. The claim petition was denied and dismissed.

In a case of relative first impression in Pennsylvania, we successfully defended a mushroom harvesting company. The claimant sustained a work-related injury to the right shoulder. She underwent surgery and was released to modified duty. The employer offered her a modified job. The claimant returned to work and continued at restricted duty. She was ultimately found to be fully recovered by a renowned Philadelphia shoulder surgeon. The defense then filed a termination petition, alleging full recovery of the right shoulder. The claimant responded by filing a claim petition, alleging a new injury to the opposite shoulder that totally disabled her from employment. After cross examining the claimant, it was determined that she purposely exceeded her work release restrictions upon return to work, despite the employer’s directive to the contrary. The claimant alleged that her voluntary acts exceeding her restrictions caused her new injury. The judge ruled that the claimant was not in the course and scope of employment when she exceeded her restrictions, and that the alleged injuries to her left shoulder were degenerative, not work-related. The judge also found the claimant to be fully recovered from the previously accepted right shoulder injury.

We successfully defended one of Pennsylvania’s largest turkey processing plants in a million dollar amputation claim. The claimant alleged that, due to an alleged exposure to turkey blood and feces at the workplace, he developed an infection in his foot that led to amputation of his leg. The claimant alleged a specific loss of the leg, total disability due to injuries separate and apart from the loss, and disabling psychological injuries. The defense was able to prove through the use of an infectious disease expert that the claimant’s leg amputation was caused by an underlying venous insufficiency and infection stemming from years of uncontrolled diabetes. The defense also established on cross examination that the claimant failed to provide proper notice of a work-related injury within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act. 

We obtained dismissal via preliminary objections of all claims asserted against a day care center in a shooting case venued in Philadelphia. The case arose from the shooting death of a student’s father. The shooter had been previously convicted of manslaughter and assault and was an employee of the day care center’s long-time food service vendor. While the decedent was dropping off his youngest child at day care, he got into an argument with the shooter, who was on the premises delivering food. The decedent subsequently drove away with his 17-year-old son in the passenger seat, and the shooter followed in his work van. A few blocks away from the day care center, the shooter pulled up alongside the decedent’s vehicle and repeatedly fired a handgun at the decedent. The decedent’s son survived the shooting. The food service vendor, its affiliated entities, the day care center and the shooter were named as defendants. The claims against the day care center included negligence per se, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent undertaking to render services, negligent infliction of emotional distress, violations of the Unfair Trade Practices & Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), negligent misrepresentation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress as to the decedent’s seventeen-year-old son who witnessed the shooting. The plaintiffs’ negligence per se claims centered on alleged violations of the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL), the Public Welfare Law (PWL) and the Pennsylvania School Code (School Code). Among other things, the plaintiffs took the position that the day care center had a duty to ensure that its service vendor’s employees did not have criminal records because those employees foreseeably came into contact with children and parents. On behalf of the day care center, we filed preliminary objections seeking dismissal of all claims asserted against it. After briefing, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted our preliminary objections. The case subsequently resolved with no contribution whatsoever from our client.

We obtained summary judgment in the Philadelphia, PA Court of Common Pleas in a case involving the alleged defective design and installation of a synthetic turf field. Our client was the alleged installer of a turf field located at a popular venue for recreational athletics. The plaintiff sustained a full tear of his right ACL, a complex tear of the medial meniscus and partial tear of the IT band when he tripped on an exposed seam in the turf. Discovery revealed that a flood occurred during turf installation, arguably impacting the outcome. Nevertheless, the court granted our motion for summary judgment premised on an argument that the plaintiff could not establish a deviation from the standard of care for turf installation in the absence of qualified expert testimony.

Our clients specialize in identifying and reclaiming lost property for consumers who are unaware that such lost property exists. The plaintiff brought claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) and for fraudulent inducement, arguing that the business model was deceptive because consumers could recover their own property without paying for the ease and convenience of having the defendant business work on their behalf. Not surprisingly, the district court found that the plaintiff’s serial complaints failed to allege anything “more than Defendants’ expertise,” and that there was no factual basis to support the notion that consumers are unduly influenced or misled. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal, expressly noting that the defendants made no misrepresentation at any time, and the UTPCPL and fraud claims were dismissed without merit. 

Our attorneys prevailed on an appeal to the Third Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ request for class certification in a product liability and warranty action. The named plaintiffs are several property owners and communities of common ownership who allege they have yellow-jacketed, corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) transporting natural gas through their structures. The flexible, yellow CSST is the modern heir to the black iron pipe formerly universal in the building industry. The flexible CSST offers advantages, including ease of installation, but the plaintiffs asserted there are latent product defects that risk failure in the event an electrical surge makes its way to the tubing, either from an in-house event or nearby lightning strike. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ request for nationwide and Pennsylvania-wide class certification of their disparate claims because of a failure of record proof on the elements of ascertainability of a sufficiently numerous class, predominance of typical and common claims, and an inability to demonstrate proof of liability and damages issues on a class-wide basis. The Third Circuit granted the plaintiffs’ request for interlocutory review of the class certification decision, but nevertheless affirmed the district court’s ruling on largely the same bases. Without passing on the merits of the product defect claims, the Third Circuit recognized that there was no basis to grant class-wide treatment given the differences in everything from notification to putative class members, liability and damages proofs, and the law governing claims. The denial of class certification was affirmed, and the case will proceed on an individual basis only.

We obtained a dismissal of a declaratory judgment action against our clients, a national firm and its principal, who specialize in identifying and reclaiming lost property for consumers, who do not realize such lost property exists. Plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action on the heels of plaintiff’s having suffered a smarting defeat in an attempted class action lawsuit against our clients. In that underlying litigation, the lower court dismissed plaintiff’s lawsuit twice and the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal. Plaintiff brought this action to preempt any attempts by our clients to someday bring a Dragonetti claim against plaintiff for filing the class action lawsuit in the underlying litigation without probable cause. We filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action, asserting that Plaintiff’s lawsuit was improper because it was asking the Court to make a decision on an issue that had not yet arisen. The Court granted our motion and soundly rejected Plaintiff’s claims, issuing an opinion that decisively stated “no amendment would save [plaintiff’s] Amended Complaint.” The lawsuit against our clients was dismissed with prejudice.

We obtained dismissal of claims asserted against our insurance broker client for breach of contract and declaratory judgment in connection with a COVID-related business interruption loss. The Court granted our Motion to Dismiss, determining that plaintiff restaurant lacked a viable breach of contract claim against the insurance broker, and thus that the derivative declaratory judgment claim also failed as a matter of law.  The lawsuit arose from pandemic-related, government-mandated business closures and plaintiff’s claim for business interruption losses, which was denied by its insurer.  The allegations against our client pertained to alleged breach of the insurance policy and coverage obligations under the policy, which unequivocally stated that the parties to the insurance policy were plaintiff as policyholder and the insurer – not our insurance broker client.   In the Magistrate Judge’s Opinion, adopted by U.S. Middle District of PA Judge Mariani, the Court concluded that our client was not a party to the insurance policy contract and did not agree to undertake any responsibilities or liabilities for the insurer’s coverage determinations, but merely acted as an agent for a plainly disclosed principal (insurer) and facilitated the contract between the parties thereto.  

We assisted an attorney and his zoning board clients in having sanctions that had been imposed by a trial court judge vacated. We helped the attorney in obtaining pre-claim assistance coverage from his insurance carrier, and then worked with him to author an appellate brief challenging the sanctions. In an unpublished opinion, the judge writing for the Commonwealth Court agreed with the arguments presented by our team and the client. The Commonwealth Court found that the trial court had no jurisdiction to issue sanctions under Section 2503 of the Judicial Code. The Commonwealth Court also found there was no basis to sanction the attorney or his clients under Rule of Civil Procedure 1701, and that the trial court did not provide appropriate due process prior to making a finding of contempt. The trial court’s order for sanctions was vacated.

A FINRA arbitration panel recommended the expungement of a customer complaint relating to allegedly unsuitable investments in oil and gas investments that declined during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.  

We obtained a dismissal of a consumer fraud class action against our clients, a national firm and its principal, who specialize in identifying and reclaiming lost property for consumers who are unaware that such lost property exists. The plaintiff brought claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) and for fraudulent inducement, arguing that the business model was deceptive because consumers could recover their own property without paying for the ease and convenience of having the defendant business work on their behalf.  Not surprisingly, the district court found that the plaintiff’s serial complaints failed to allege anything “more than Defendants’ expertise,” and that there was no factual basis to support the notion that consumers are unduly influenced or misled.  On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal, expressly noting that the defendants made no misrepresentation at any time, and the UTPCPL and fraud claims were dismissed as without merit.  DeSimone v. U.S. Claims Servs., Inc., 2020 WL 2556949 (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2020), aff’d 2021 WL 1662779 (3d Cir. Apr. 28, 2021).

We were successful in dismissing the employer and insurer from a fatal claim as a result of COVID-19 infection. The claimant-widower filed the claim on behalf of his deceased wife, alleging she contracted COVID-19 while working in the capacity of a caretaker for a sick client. We argued that the correct employer for workers’ compensation purposes was the claimant’s client, not the named employer. The Workers’ Compensation Judge agreed and dismissed the named employer and insurer as party defendants.

We successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf of a well-known hospital and defended the claimant’s petition for review to expand the nature of the accepted injury. The injury was accepted as a right distal bicep strain, which included a partial tear that resulted in surgery. The claimant asserted the injury should be expanded to also include right carpal tunnel, right elbow sprain and trigger fingers. A detailed cross-examination of the claimant established the complaints referable to right carpal and trigger fingers began six months after the injury, which was corroborated by the claimant’s treating physician’s records. The IME expert, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon with specialized training in hand surgery, had the opportunity to perform a comprehensive physical examination and review the diagnostic studies, post- and pre-injury medical records, and the claimant’s family physician’s records. This review revealed non-work-related carpal tunnel risk factor conditions, including obesity, post-menopausal, non-insulin dependent diabetes and testing for hypothyroidism. It was further argued that the claimant’s medical expert did not have expertise in the surgery involved in the case and failed to review the claimant’s testimony and diagnostic films. Ultimately, the judge found the defense medical expert competent, credible and persuasive.

After a masked and socially distanced two-day trial in Bucks County, we obtained a defense verdict in favor of an automotive manufacturer. ​The plaintiff purchased a new 2018 vehicle on March 10, 2018. Approximately one year after the purchase, the plaintiff complained several times that the start/stop function shut off and would not restart. The manufacturer identified the problem and was working on a solution. Meanwhile, the dealership told the plaintiff to turn off the start/stop function until a software update came out. The software update came out in early May of 2019, less than 80 days after the plaintiff’s first complaint. The plaintiff asserted claims under the Pennsylvania Automobile Lemon Law, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Uniform Commercial Code, and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law that the vehicle’s repair history was all related to an intermittent and still unrepaired start/stop issue with the car. The defense successfully proved through witness and expert testimony that the vehicle’s mechanical problems were fixed in a timely fashion. The repair work done by the dealership under the warranty was effective and reliable, and the problem was permanently repaired. After trial, the judge requested that each side provide a memorandum with findings of fact and closing arguments. Upon review of same, a ruling was issued in our client’s favor.

We obtained dismissal of an accounting malpractice claim on preliminary objections in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiffs alleged that their accountant improperly prepared their tax returns—as married filing jointly—and failed to claim business losses, that resulted in an unexpected tax liability being owed. Although the plaintiffs attempted to rely on the discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations, the defense successfully argued that the plaintiffs were on notice of the alleged negligence by the time they received the prepared tax returns, and that their failure to investigate potential claims at that time was a failure to exercise due diligence as a matter of law. We further argued that because they were under a duty to investigate earlier, the plaintiffs could not successfully allege that they could not have known of their claims until they hired a tax attorney to investigate. Because the plaintiffs did not bring their negligence claim until more than two years after they received their prepared tax returns, their claims were barred by the Statute of Limitations.

The hearing was to challenge the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Section’s final determination that an injured worker’s shoulder surgery expenses must be paid by the insurance carrier and the employer. We argued that the work-relatedness of the shoulder surgery is currently in dispute, thus barring the Bureau’s attempt to compel payment. We also proffered the argument that due process of the provider remained intact since a challenge to work-relatedness must be adjudicated before a provider has standing to challenge the amount or timeliness of payment. The decision of the court quashed the Bureau’s determination and held that no surgical expenses are payable.

This was the first civil case tried in a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania since the court closures caused by COVID-19. The plaintiff alleged that the police officer used excessive force in arresting her outside of a bar in the City of York. She filed a Section 1983 civil rights lawsuit, alleging she sustained a traumatic brain injury after the officer threw her head against a brick wall, threw her to the ground and then repeatedly punched her in the face. By utilizing video surveillance footage and several liability and damage experts, we were able to convince the jury that the force used by the officer was reasonable and justified by the plaintiff’s resistance. The jury deliberated for less than 30 minutes before rendering its verdict.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs were the maternal grandparents of two children who were removed from the custody of their parents and placed in foster care. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated their substantive and procedural due process rights protected by the 14th Amendment by failing to provide them with custody of the children and notice of court hearings. Addressing an open legal question, the court held that the plaintiffs did not stand in loco parentis to the children and, therefore, did not enjoy 14th Amendment protections. The court dismissed all claims against the county and the individual county employees.

Resolved a FINRA matter involving four private placement investments for a portion of the costs. ​At issue were alleged losses exceeding $200,000. Leveraging the panel’s favorable decision on an earlier Motion for Eligibility (untimeliness), we convinced claimants’ counsel of the futility of proceeding further. Claimants’ counsel agreed to resolve the case for his filing costs only, split among three respondents.

We secured a dismissal of a civil rights action against a Pennsylvania children and youth agency and several of its caseworkers and staff attorneys. ​The plaintiff parents brought their five-month-old baby to the hospital with a spiral fracture mid-shaft on his right humerus. The hospital team collectively concluded that the injury was probably accidental in nature, but a nurse reported the injury to the agency, concerned that it might have been caused by abuse. By law the agency is bound to investigate suspected child abuse and did so. A judge approved the request for a safety plan that required a chaperone to be with the parents and child, even in the home, while the merits of the abuse investigation continued. At the end of the investigation, the judge concluded the injury was accidental, and the safety plan was terminated. The plaintiffs then filed an action, alleging the safety plan violated their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights. The federal district court dismissed the case, concluding the plaintiffs’ allegations of interference with the family unit, even if true, do not rise to the level of “shocking to the conscience” necessary for a due process violation. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed, stating that the nurse’s report of possible child abuse, in conjunction with other evidence to support suspicion of the same, make the defendants’ actions not “shocking to the conscience,” and so no substantive due process claim was stated. Dismissal was affirmed.

​Our client was the roofing contractor on a project in Philadelphia. The plaintiff was an employee of a subcontractor of our client. The plaintiff was injured when he fell through a skylight cutout in the roof. He fell approximately 15 feet and sustained injuries, including a broken hip (requiring ORIF) and fractured vertebra. The plaintiff was hospitalized for one month. The last settlement demand was $2.5 million. We moved for summary judgment based upon arguments that our client, the roofing contractor who did not occupy the site nor control the work, breached no duty of care to the plaintiff. The court granted summary judgment.

The claimant slipped and fell at work, injuring his head and neck. The carrier accepted a contusion injury. The claimant alleged multiple additional injuries including cognitive maladies, memory loss, speech problems, vision convergence, photophobia, cranial nerve injuries and balance issues. The claimant testified while wearing sunglasses due to his alleged photophobia condition. Thirteen hours of surveillance video disputed the claimant’s alleged symptoms (including his need for sunglasses). Prior health records revealed the claimant to be treating for all of his alleged cognitive problems before the work incident ever took place. The claimant’s first treating neurologist records supported the claimant’s symptoms to be non-anatomical. The carrier’s IME physician found the claimant to have suffered non-disabling contusion injuries which resolved. The judge found in favor of the employer and carrier, ruling that the claimant’s injuries were limited to contusions and had fully resolved. The claimant appealed the case to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, arguing the judge capriciously disregarded the evidence. The Board held that the claimant’s appeal was a veiled collateral attack on the workers’ compensation judge’s credibility determinations and affirmed the judge. At issue were potential life-time indemnity benefit payments and over $1 million of medical expenses.