.

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

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

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.

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

Event

Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC)

Sean and Alex will present, "Life Care Plans: From Low Impact to Policy Limits," focusing on the history and expanding use of life care plans in litigation and their ability to transform low impact injury claims to disproportionate high value claims. By focusing on the limitations of life care planners, Florida's tort-reform on medical damages, and the Daubert standard, extraordinary life care plans with inflated future medical care recommendations can be defended.

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

Thought Leadership

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.