.

Seth J. Schwartz

Chair, Construction Injury Practice

SJSchwartz@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Seth J. Schwartz

A shareholder in the firm’s Casualty Department and recipient of Martindale-Hubbell’s highest AV® Preeminent™ rating, Seth represents construction companies and contractors, trucking companies, bars, commercial property owners and managers, and amusement parks and insurers throughout Pennsylvania. His practice focuses on high-exposure matters involving catastrophic injury or death in the areas of construction accidents and defects, trucking, liquor liability, premises liability, and sports and amusement. An accomplished trial lawyer, Seth has tried numerous jury cases in Philadelphia and across eastern Pennsylvania, securing multiple defense verdicts.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Seth was a staff trial attorney for seven years at Nationwide Insurance. He handled general defense litigation including automobile liability, construction matters, and premises liability. Before joining Nationwide Insurance, Seth entered private practice at a small civil litigation firm in Philadelphia, where he handled a range of civil litigation from premises liability to complex product liability matters.

Seth was appointed to judge pro tem for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and to the Investigative Division of the Philadelphia Bar Association's Commission on Judicial Selection and Retention.

Seth graduated from Temple University School of Law in 1992. He attended college at The American University where he graduated in 1988 with honors.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 1992)
    • American University (B.S.B.A., cum laude, 1988)
    • Pennsylvania, 1992
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1994
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • BTI Client Service All-Star (2024)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • An Overview of Construction Defect Litigation in Pennsylvania, Nationwide Insurance Company, December 16, 2014
    • Commercial Defense Practice in New York, New Jersey & Pennsylvania, Nationwide Insurance Company, December 5, 2014
    • Commercial Defense Practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Nationwide Insurance Company, December 2013
    • Brief Overview of Pennsylvania Contractual Indemnity and Additional Insured Issues, Nationwide insurance Company, April 2012
    • Numerous presentations to property managers and insurance companies regarding effective claims handling and tender issues 
    • Pennsylvania Amusement Park Association Annual Conference, 2007
    • Defense jury verdict in premises liability matter.  Seth was the only defense attorney and Plaintiff had two lawyers during trial.  Plaintiff argued spoliation of evidence, had back surgery and "boarded" over seven figures in damages.  Seth developed inconsistencies during the cross examination of Plaintiff's witnesses, and argued that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof.
    • Defense jury verdict in premises liability matter.  Seth again was the only defense attorney and Plaintiff had two lawyers during trial.  Plaintiff  argued that the defendant failed to preserve evidence.  It is also noted that the defendant had witness issues with a former employee.  Plaintiff was a grandfatherly gentlemen claiming a serious a  hip injury.  Seth introduced evidence that there were gaps in Plaintiff's story, and during Seth's cross examination of Plaintiff's liability expert, the expert admitted that he did not have his entire file, although he initially told the jury he did; and, he acknowledged that the Defendant was compliant with a different set of industry regulations which he omitted to discuss during direct examination.
    • Defense jury verdict in automobile rear-end collision with negligence stipulation involving surgery and significant wage loss claim. Negligence was admitted to the jury. Significant credibility issues developed during the case, including Plaintiff's vocational expert admitting in front of the jury of failing to produce all discoverable documents. After hearing the evidence, jury returned a defense verdict, although negligence was admitted. 
    • Defense jury verdict in rear-end motor vehicle accident case. Negligence was admitted. Plaintiff alleged surgery and a significant vocational claim. Numerous inconsistencies were developed during trial involving the Plaintiff's reporting of the incident to the doctor. After deliberation, jury awarded a defense verdict. 
    • Defense jury verdict in rear-end collision with negligence stipulation involving two personal injury claims of multiple herniations and permanency. During trial, evidence was developed which revealed that Plaintiffs provided varying medical histories to different doctors. After hearing the evidence, jury returned a defense verdict. 
    • Defense jury verdict in premises liability case whereby the plaintiff, a pizza delivery person, allegedly fell on ice while delivering a pizza. During trial Plaintiff admitted on cross examination to observing alternative pathways and that he did not maintain a vigilant look out. The jury returned a defense verdict in favor of the homeowners. 
    • Christian Legal Clinics of Philadelphia

Results

View all

Consolidated Cases Successfully Transferred to Correct Venue

We successfully transferred two consolidated cases involving alleged falls by construction workers from Philadelphia to Cumberland County. Our clients were located in Lancaster County, and the only codefendant was located in Philadelphia County. We filed preliminary objections as to venue, arguing that the codefendant was a “phantom” defendant named to obtain venue in Philadelphia County. The court was convinced by our arguments. This ruling cuts against the current trend of giving broad deference to plaintiffs on venue issues.

Thought Leadership

View all

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Construction Injury Litigation Practice Group

December 1, 2023

Recent data released from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics reveals that construction laborers accounted for 11.9% of all reported fatal falls, slips, or trips in 2020 across all occupations. Sixty percent of all construction laborers perform their work near or around moving mechanical parts or in close proximity to large moving objects. Fifty percent of these workers reportedly make use of PPE. Construction sites are among the most dangerous places to work in the United States. Indeed, in 2020 alone, construction laborers accounted for 8.9% of all workplace deaths due to exposure to harmful substances or environments. With millions of accidents reported each year, injuries to construction workers are often serious or even catastrophic.  This type of litigation is fraught with difficulty since it tends to involve sophisticated legal issues, multiple parties, multiple causes of action, complex relationships, and problematic factual situations. The law in this area continues to evolve as existing rules and precedent are continually challenged, overturned, replaced, or modified.  Marshall Dennehey’s Construction Injury Litigation Practice Group understands these complex relationships and issues. Our firm has a significant presence in the construction industry in the representation of construction companies/prime contractors, commercial property owners/ managers, developers, design professionals, and demolition, electrical, roofing, and various other trade subcontractors in a wide array of serious loss cases where there is often catastrophic injury or death. With decades of experience, our diverse team of attorneys regularly defends our clients in a multitude of personal injury matters arising out of the construction process. We handle everything from catastrophic injury or death due to contact with objects or equipment, fatal or catastrophic transportation incidents, roofing incidents, and scaffolding/ladder incidents, to the more routine worksite slip and fall incidents.  Our defense approach is aimed at the early identification of key issues and is predicated on developing the earliest possible defense strategies tailored to the individual case and client. Our involvement often begins with pre-litigation accident investigation, claims analysis, best practices related to client document and evidence retention, and early assessment of risk/liability transfer opportunities to shift liability and exposure under the terms of a construction contract, including indemnification and additional insured coverage issues. Our diverse team of trial attorneys have significant experience in handling some of the most high-profile and complex construction litigation matters taking place across the United States, and we have proven time and again, that we are ready and able to try even the most challenging construction injury matters to verdict with the skills needed to prevail.  The depth of our experience is the key to our legal defense in construction injury matters. Our professionals have considerable breadth of experience in this domain. They understand the evolving and complex laws surrounding this volatile area of practice, including issues relating to insurance coverage and claims disputes, additional insured coverage, product liability, workers’ compensation, the statutory employer doctrine, contractor licensing issues, Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) compliance and workplace safety issues, and the peculiar risk doctrine. Through the use of cutting-edge technology and aggressive claim investigation, we are able to assess liability exposure and potential damages issues early on in a case so, together with the client and insurer, we can effectively resolve the case. Our unique strategy and team approach consists of experienced partners, associates, and paralegals capable of handling the basic, as well as the highly-sophisticated and complex, construction injury litigation matters throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Florida, New York, and Connecticut.  We look forward to your inquiries and remain at your disposal for presentations or seminars your company may desire.     Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 4, December 2023, 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. © 2023 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. 

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.