.

Sarah B. Cole

Office Managing Attorney

SBCole@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Sarah B. Cole

Sarah is a member of the Casualty Department where she focuses her practice in the areas of general commercial liability, including premises liability and residential group home liability.  As managing shareholder of the Wilmington office, Sarah oversees the day-to-day operations for the entire office, ensuring that client matters are handled promptly, professionally and effectively. She also serves on the firm's Board of Directors.

For the past decade, Sarah has defended hundreds of clients in the defense of personal injury litigation in the Delaware courts, with many cases tried successfully to verdict. In addition, she has defended clients in insurance coverage disputes as well as property damage litigation.

As a member of the Fraud/Special Investigative Unit (SIU) Litigation Practice Group, Sarah continues to develop her skills litigating and investigating claims of insurance fraud.  She also has experience handling PIP disputes throughout the state of Delaware on behalf of our clients.

Sarah graduated from Bryn Mawr College in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. She received her juris doctorate from the University of Maryland in 2005.  During law school, Sarah was an intern with the Delaware Court of Chancery.  After graduation, Sarah served as a law clerk to the Honorable Arlene Minus Coppadge and the Honorable Robert B. Coonin.

After her clerkship, Sarah went into private practice at a civil defense litigation firm where she successfully defended individuals and businesses in many jury trials in the Delaware Superior Court. 

Sarah is active with local animal welfare organizations in Delaware, including the Delaware Humane Association and Faithful Friends Animal Society.

    • University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (J.D., 2005)
    • Bryn Mawr College (B.A., 2001)
    • Delaware, 2005
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Litigation - Insurance (2023-2026)
    • Top Lawyer, Tort Law, Delaware Today (November 2024)
    • American Board of Trial Advocates, 2026
    • Delaware State Bar Association
    • New Jersey Contractual Indemnity and Additional Insured Issues, Zurich Insurance, April 2015
    • "What Del.'s Legal Leaders Are Keeping an Eye on For '24," Law360, January 4, 2024
    • Defense verdict in Delaware Superior Court in a personal injury lawsuit arising out of a slip and fall at a commercial shopping center where liability and significant damages were in dispute.
    • Successful defense of a residential group home in relation to personal injury claims resulting in efficient and well-informed settlement of all claims prior to the filing of suit.
    • Defense verdict in Delaware Superior Court in a personal injury lawsuit arising out of a motor vehicle accident.  Damages and liability were in dispute.  The strategic defense theory presented  at trial resulted in the jury awarding a sum that was vastly below the plaintiff's pre-trial demand. Thereafter, the defense successfully argued in opposition to motions for additur and for a new trial.
    • Defended a first-party lawsuit for underinsured motorist coverage before a jury in Delaware Superior Court. Received a defense verdict when the jury awarded damages that equated to less than what the plaintiff received from the underlying tortfeasor.  Thereafter, the defense successfully argued in opposition to motions for additur and for a new trial.
    • Defended a hotel owner in a premises liability claim brought in Delaware Superior Court with alleged damages approaching nearly $1 million. Through the course of discovery, it was demonstrated that  the hotel owner had significant defenses to the plaintiff's claims. Settled the case for a fraction of the original demand.
    • Defense verdict in Delaware Superior Court in a personal injury lawsuit arising out of a motor vehicle accident.  After extensive expert and lay witness testimony, the jury found in favor of the defense on liability.  Thereafter, the defense successfully argued in opposition to motions for additur and for a new trial.  Jury's verdict upheld in both Delaware Superior Court and the Delaware Supreme Court.

Results

View all

Defense Jury Verdict Obtained Before the Delaware Superior Court

We received a defense jury verdict before the Delaware Superior Court, New Castle County. Although liability was undisputed at trial, damages were disputed. The plaintiff sought damages for head, neck, back and left shoulder injuries. He had $350,000 in future medical bills and $78,000 in past medical bills that he could board. The plaintiff also had a $5 million lost wage claim that we were able to get dismissed prior to trial on a motion in limine.

Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Successfully Argue Before the Delaware Supreme Court.

Following oral argument heard en banc, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an opinion upholding the application of the Continuing Storm Doctrine, resulting in the affirmation of the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment to our client. 

Thought Leadership

View all

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Working In the “First State” – Spotlight on Wilmington

March 1, 2024

Wilmington, Delaware, is small but mighty. It is a city on the upswing and a great place to practice law. Many companies choose to incorporate in Delaware and, as a result, the courts and litigators keep plenty busy with disputes that originate in and out of the state.  The Delaware office of Marshall Dennehey opened in 1995 and, since that time, has represented clients in casualty, professional liability, workers’ compensation, and medical malpractice matters. For the first 25-plus years of its existence, this office was led by Kevin Connors, who maintains a busy practice to this day. During his tenure, the office grew to roughly 20 attorneys in the firm’s four major departments. Our Wilmington office maintains a robust practice throughout all three counties in the state.  The strength of the Delaware office is in its people. The office, like the firm itself, makes a commitment to each person who joins us to provide apprenticeship, guidance, comradery, and support. We want people to succeed here, and we are committed to their advancement. If you were to walk down the hallways of our office, you would see open doors, friendly faces (for the most part), some odd artwork, and fantasy football draft posters. You will also likely come across our main kitchen and probably find some donuts and a vending machine that works fairly well. Most importantly though, you will find a welcoming atmosphere that serves as the foundation for our firm’s and our office’s success.  The attorneys in our office have a few time-honored traditions, most notably, the annual Crab Trip. Every June, attorneys board a bus (hopefully equipped with a bathroom) and make the journey down to Leipsic, Delaware, for an afternoon of crabs, hush puppies, fried-everything, and Prairie Fires. The bus then usually takes a meandering route back to Wilmington, stopping at various well-heeled establishments along the way. It is on this trip that bonds are formed and friendships are solidified. We are a team, and we enjoy each others company. The Wilmington office is growing, both with the type of litigation work we take on and the attorneys who come on board. We added a new shareholder and three associates in all four litigation departments in the last two years and hope to add more in 2024. The future is bright. We welcome you as well and invite you to come and visit. Feel free to bring donuts. *Sarah is a shareholder and the managing attorney of our Wilmington, Delaware, office. She can be reached at (302) 552-4364 or SBCole@mdwcg.com.    Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 1, March 2024, 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. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.   Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 1, March 2024

News

View all

Firm Highlights

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

A Unified, Single Claim for Damages Requires Apportionment in a Joint Proposal: What the Decision in 'Trace Elements' Means for Property Insurance Claims

Kimberly and Seth, shareholders in the Insurance Services Practice in our Fort Lauderdale office, break down the Florida Supreme Court's decision in 'Trace Elements v. MacKensen' and what it means for property insurance claims in the state. Read the article here.

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

Fla. Workers' Comp Physician Dispensing Ruling Could Produce New Legislative Fight

In a significant decision issued on February 25, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (DCA) ruled in Publix Super Markets, Inc., et al. v. Department of Financial Services, et al., 430 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026), 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.  Read Blake's article in Insurance Journal: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2026/08/05/880229.htm. 

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Result

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.