Results

We recently obtained a “no cause” verdict in an employment case in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The plaintiff, an employee of a New Jersey State entity, asserted violations of the Contentious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). According to the plaintiff, after reporting purported deficiencies with an environmental permit, he was subject to a retaliatory and hostile work environment. We successfully argued that the plaintiff did not articulate a violation of law or public policy, nor did he prove that the various employment actions he received created a hostile work environment or were even caused by the alleged whistleblowing.

We won a motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case in Pennsylvania. The plaintiff suffered a hip fracture when he fell on the defendant’s sidewalk while delivering a food order. At the time of the accident, there was an active freezing rain and sleet storm, and generally slippery conditions prevailed. We filed a motion for summary judgment based on the “hills and ridges” doctrine. The plaintiff argued that the doctrine was inapplicable due to human intervention that allegedly altered the natural accumulation. The defendant had applied rock salt to the sidewalk approximately 45 minutes prior to the accident. In granting our motion for summary judgment, the court found there was no evidence that the application of rock salt created a dangerous condition or increased the natural hazards of the existing ice.

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. 

We obtained a defense verdict after a bench trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, which found the plaintiff did not meet the definition of an insured entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. The case arose out of a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff was a back seat passenger in a vehicle that was struck by the tortfeasor. After settling his bodily injury claim with the tortfeasor and with the underlying UIM carrier that insured the vehicle he was a passenger in, the plaintiff submitted a UIM claim seeking UIM benefits under his alleged sister’s UIM policy with our client. There was no dispute the plaintiff was living with his “sister” at the time of the accident. Therefore, the only issue was whether the plaintiff could show he was an insured and entitled to coverage by proving he was related to his “sister” by blood, adoption or marriage to meet the definition of a “family member” under the policy. She testified during discovery and at trial that she is not related to the plaintiff by blood, adoption or marriage. As a result of this testimony, the judge found the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof and entered a defense verdict for our client. 

In a case where we represented a child care center, a federal district judge from the Western District of Pennsylvania granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice. The plaintiffs were nine minority employees who were involuntarily furloughed in the fall of 2020. They filed suit, alleging their employment was terminated in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the Wage Payment and Collection Law, and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act. The court agreed with the arguments made by the center, finding that the plaintiffs’ class claims were not timely exhausted. The court disagreed with the plaintiffs’ arguments that their charges gave notice of their putative class claims because each charge only focused on the individual complainant’s alleged personal disparate treatment. The court also found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to equitable tolling as they did not exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining essential information bearing on their claim. Accordingly, the court dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice, finding no need to address the other bases for dismissal or the center’s request to strike the class action allegations. 

We successfully defended a Pennsylvania-based industrial linear actuator supplier on appeal before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board. The claimant appealed a termination order which found her to be fully recovered from work injuries to her low back and multiple other body parts. The claimant alleged on appeal that factors considered by the underlying workers’ compensation judge supporting the full recovery opinion (including a post-injury new slip and fall) were not supported by the evidence record. To the contrary, we successfully argued on appeal that the workers’ compensation judge’s decision was based on cross examination of the claimant’s own medical expert wherein he gleaned a history from the claimant of subsequent injuries that were never disputed by the claimant in follow-up testimony. The Appeal Board held that the judge can only decide cases based on evidence before the court, and the Board would not overturn the judge based on new allegations of the claimant.

We obtained orders for dismissal, with prejudice, where four New Jersey medical providers alleged they were entitled to additional monies for medical treatment provided in New Jersey to a New York resident. The underlying accident involved a laborer who resided in New York, worked in New York and sustained the injuries in New York. Four medical providers filed medical provider claims against the employer in New Jersey, seeking more than $800,000 from the employer for treatment rendered in relation to this accident. We filed motions to dismiss these claims for lack of jurisdiction, asserting there were insufficient contacts with the state of New Jersey to establish jurisdiction. The judge of compensation ruled in favor of the employer, dismissing the four medical providers’ applications with prejudice.  

We were successful at the trial and appellate levels in a high-profile legal malpractice action. The Appellate Division’s decision came after a decade of litigation in various courts stemming from a judgment a multinational conglomerate obtained against the plaintiff and his partners in which litigation ensued over debt collection. The plaintiffs alleged the attorneys committed fraud and misrepresentation that led to the plaintiffs’ damages, which they claimed were well in excess of $10 million. We argued that the assignment agreement actually reduced the amount owed to the corporation and asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that our client was protected by legal privilege, the statute of limitations had passed, and it had no legal duty to the plaintiff. The trial court agreed to dismiss the case, finding that the plaintiff’s claims were not supported by evidence. On appeal, the court upheld the decision, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments. The Appellate Division found that our clients owed no duty to the plaintiff-debtors as non-clients since the attorneys’ alleged misrepresentations were made during adversarial litigation and, thus, were not intended to induce reasonable reliance by a specific non-client. This decision is extremely important to the trial bar and provides attorneys with a level of protection and immunity in connection with statements and arguments they make as adversaries in litigation.

We secured dismissal of a $10 million legal malpractice case at both the trial and appellate levels, with courts finding plaintiffs failed to provide necessary evidence or meet procedural requirements. The plaintiffs, a group of entities created for the estate planning of a now deceased married couple, appealed the trial court’s decision to deny their request to extend the time for discovery and to dismiss their claims against several defendants, including lawyers and law firms. The plaintiffs accused these defendants of negligence, breach of trust, misuse of funds, and legal malpractice related to a previous settlement and the handling of family business matters. The court found that the plaintiffs did not provide the necessary evidence or expert testimony to support their legal malpractice claims. The appeals court reviewed the trial court’s actions and found no mistake in how the court handled the case. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, emphasizing that the plaintiffs’ inability to meet court requirements and present strong claims warranted the dismissal of their case.

We prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a precedential decision upholding application of a household vehicle exclusion. A fifteen-year-old was seriously injured while riding an uninsured dirt bike on private property. After recovering the bodily injury limit of the tortfeasor’s policy, he also recovered UIM benefits under the two household policies. However, the other household policy underwritten by the same carrier contained a household vehicle exclusion, which excluded UIM benefits under the facts of the accident, so coverage was denied. The carrier then filed a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania, but lost because the District Court concluded that the household vehicle exclusion acted as an impermissible de facto waiver of stacking as a result of the carrier paying UIM benefits under the other household policy. On appeal, a unanimous panel of the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s Order, holding in a precedential opinion that the household vehicle exclusion was valid and enforceable because the dirt bike involved in the underlying accident was uninsured.   

We achieved dismissal of a suit against a school district by way of preliminary objections. The Dauphin County case involved allegations that the district deprived the plaintiffs of certain educational rights, premised on procedural due process violations, negligence and subornation of perjury. Preliminary objections were filed to the plaintiffs’ original complaint on both procedural and substantive grounds. Following the filing of an amended complaint and additional preliminary objections on similar grounds, argument was held. As a result, the court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the plaintiffs’ amended complaint with prejudice. 

We successfully upheld an arbitrator’s ruling in a $13 million construction defect case, defeating claims that our client negligently recommended windows and doors for a coastal Florida home. The owners’ direct claims against the general contractor and our client, the window and door supplier and installer, were arbitrated. The owners claimed the window company misrepresented the fitness of the windows and doors for use in Florida’s coastal environment. We argued that the windows and doors were specified by the owner and architect and that our client performed proper due diligence by visiting the manufacturing facility and consulting with the manufacturer’s engineers with regard to the application. The arbitrator found no liability as to our client because there was no evidence it was negligent in its recommendation of the product.

We successfully achieved affirmance of the trial court’s decision to dismiss all claims against a property owner and designer in a New York labor law matter. The plaintiff was injured when he fell from a ladder stacked atop a bakers scaffold while performing renovation work on a four-story brownstone. The 16-foot ladder and the scaffold were provided by his employer—the general contractor—and set up at his employer’s discretion. The plaintiff filed an action against the owner of the property and the designer, alleging violations of various labor law claims, including labor law Sections 240(1), 241(6) and 200. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment, seeking a dismissal of all claims, was filed after the plaintiff’s depositions but before any of the defendants were deposed and with extensive discovery outstanding. The plaintiff opposed the motion and cross moved to compel further discovery. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims as the property owners qualified for the owner and two-family dwelling exception to the labor law. The trial court held that the defendants did not direct, supervise or control any of the plaintiff’s activities. Therefore, according to the affidavit, the single-family home exception did not apply. After oral argument, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision with costs.

We were able to permanently close a matter involving a serious shoulder injury with a Section 20 resolution. In this case, the petitioner sustained significant injuries to her shoulder with an MRI showing tearing. The petitioner ultimately underwent two shoulder surgeries, and our own permanency expert found permanent disability of 7.5% partial total. Based upon wage statements we obtained, he asserted that any permanency award should be paid at a reduced rate—making the monetary award about $40,000 less than what would be paid at the full chart rate. When the judge attempted to have the parties settle for a higher percentage of disability—to make up for the lower rate—we indicated our intent to take the matter to trial. In order to avoid a trial, the judge indicated he would approve a Section 20 settlement. Thus, in an admitted claim involving serious injuries, two surgeries and our own doctor conceding permanency, we were able to close the matter out permanently with a Section 20 resolution.

We obtained a dismissal with prejudice of all claims in a Dragonetti action in federal court in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Our clients, a family law attorney and her law firm, were sued after they filed a series of emergency motions on behalf of a mother embroiled in a contentious divorce. The emergency motions concerned the welfare of children and contained sensitive allegations relating to purported abuse. Following the disposition of these motions, the husband and his current partner sued our clients for wrongful use of civil proceedings, abuse of process and defamation. Notably, the court’s opinion quoted our brief in support directly for its analysis of the controlling cases. The court dismissed all claims against our clients with prejudice.

We secured summary judgment in a case where the plaintiff fell down a flight of stairs at a NASCAR race in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, sustaining multiple fractures. The plaintiff alleged that she fell on water that had accumulated from patrons’ coolers dripping through the bleachers onto the staircase below. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety due to her failure to adequately establish actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.

We obtained a motion to dismiss in a data breach class action arising out of a ransomware attack against a hospital network. The attack compromised personal information of over 90,000 patients. In state court, our motion to dismiss was granted for lack of standing. The state court also granted our motion as to each cause of action for failure to state a claim on the basis that no implied contract existed with the entities for privacy protection and the negligence claims were not available under Florida law.

We secured a jury defense verdict in the Superior Court of New Jersey in a product liability case where the demand was $650,000. The plaintiff alleged a defect in the handle of an ultraviolet light disinfecting device that caused her to develop trigger finger. They alleged a design defect and failure to warn claim, claiming permanent damage to her ring finger and hand as a result of surgeries to correct the injury.

We succeeded in obtaining a per curiam affirmance in the First District Court of Appeal of a final order dismissing the plaintiff’s fire-loss subrogation claim against our client, a tenant in a leased property the plaintiff insured. The First District affirmed the trial court’s finding that the specific fire-loss provisions in the lease shifted the risk of loss to the landlord, the plaintiff’s insured. As a result, our client was a co-insured under the plaintiff’s policy. An insurance company cannot sue its own insured.

We received a favorable decision dismissing a Claim Petition involving a claimant who alleged injuries from working at home on the couch. Mike submitted the claimant’s testimony from third-party litigation demonstrating conflicts with her testimony in the workers’ compensation case to impact her credibility. He also emphasized the claimant’s pre-existing condition, even though she told her medical expert that she was asymptomatic, as the claimant had been receiving chiropractic care for 38 years. The judge found that the history relied upon by the claimant’s medical expert was based upon what the claimant told him, which he found not credible. The judge ultimately found that the claimant did not meet her burden of proving that she suffered a work-related injury.

We won summary judgment for a homeowners association. Our client filed a lawsuit to enforce the Covenant of Restrictions banning barnyard animals and claiming that the homeowners failed to obtain necessary approvals to build a coup and run for six chickens. The homeowners claimed the six chickens were emotional support animals, pursuant to the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). The court held that the chickens are not emotional support animals, pursuant to both FHA and NJLAD, and granted summary judgment. This is an area of first impression for the New Jersey courts as to whether non-domesticated animals can be considered emotional support animals.

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 obtained an order granting our motion to dismiss for failure to allege facts supporting a bad faith claim pursuant to Pennsylvania and federal case law. The case arose out of an uninsured motorist (UM) claim from a motor vehicle accident involving the plaintiff and a phantom vehicle. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff averred that he sustained various injuries, including to his head, neck, back, both knees and left shoulder. The plaintiff asserted an uninsured motorist benefit claim under his insurer’s policy, with $50,000 in UM benefits and with no stacking. In the complaint, the plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract and bad faith. After we filed a motion to dismiss the bad faith count for failing to allege facts specific to support such a claim, the court agreed and dismissed the bad faith count with prejudice. Shortly after the decision, the plaintiff settled his UM claim for a little over $8,000.

We successfully defended a manufacturer serving OEMs in the aerospace, defense, semiconductor and high-tech industries. The case involved a claim petition with complex injury allegations and a potentially catastrophic initial judgement on the pleadings since the employer failed to timely answer the claim petition. When we became involved, we were able to limit the judgement on the pleadings to the date that a timely answer could have been filed. Ongoing disability in the case turned on the credibility of the claimant’s medical evidence. The claimant presented an expert witness who opined that the claimant’s virtual lifetime of serious low back and neck abnormalities were “aggravated” by his having sat down at work after feeling dizzy. Tony presented rebuttal expert evidence from a well-respected orthopedic surgeon demonstrating no architectural change in the claimant’s lumbar spine or cervical spine due to the alleged injury event and no ongoing or acute problems. The court accepted the defense evidence as credible, and the claimant was found to be without ongoing disability and fully recovered from any condition subject to the former judgement on the pleadings.

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 summary judgment for an online car sharing platform that connects vehicle owners (hosts) with travelers and locals (guests) seeking to book those vehicles for a fee in New York. The plaintiff alleged that he sustained serious injuries when he was involved in an automobile accident that collided with a vehicle listed on our client’s website. The Bronx County Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of our client, ruling that the defendant demonstrated that it is a peer-to-peer car sharing service; it does not provide rental services; it does not own, maintain or repair any of the vehicles on its platform; it is not responsible for the acts and omissions of the hosts or guests; and there is no agency relationship between defendant and the hosts or guests.

We obtained a defense jury verdict on behalf of a cardiologist. The patient came to the hospital with chest pain radiating to his arm and shortness of breath. The attending physician ordered a stress test, which was performed by the defendant cardiologist, that was interpreted as normal. The patient was then discharged from the hospital and died from a heart issue within two weeks. An autopsy found significant narrowing of all of the arteries of the heart, including a 90% narrowing in the LAD (i.e. the “widowmaker”). The pathologist and coroner opined that the decedent had a cardiac event caused by the significant narrowing of the arteries, which caused his death. The ensuing claim was that the stress test was misinterpreted by the defendant cardiologist. Our expert, a local cardiologist, testified that our client properly interpreted the stress test and that 10% of patients with coronary artery disease will still have a normal stress test. The jury returned a verdict finding no negligence by the defendant cardiologist.

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 successfully defended a national car-sharing company, resulting in a dismissal of all claims. The case involved a multi-party suit arising out of a commercial auto accident. Through aggressive pleading, we obtained a dismissal by arguing that both federal and state law provisions prohibited any claims against the car-sharing company.

We obtained a directed verdict in favor of our client in a high-risk defamation lawsuit. We were called to try the case on behalf of the CEO of a local chapter of a well-known national nonprofit after the plaintiff was permitted to amend the complaint to seek punitive damages from the CEO personally. The plaintiff was a volunteer at a camp. A decision was made to separate him from the camp and the organization. The plaintiff alleged that the CEO personally defamed him by alerting other volunteers and committees of the decision. He demanded an eight-figure sum prior to trial. After a six-day trial and several hours of argument at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the court granted our motion for directed verdict, ruling that the evidence presented confirmed that the communications by the CEO were covered by a qualified privilege and that, based on cross examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses, the defense established that there was no malicious conduct by the CEO.