.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2024 Shareholder Class And Special Counsel Promotions

December 19, 2023

Marshall Dennehey is pleased to announce that 10 attorneys have been elected shareholders of the firm effective January 1, 2024. Additionally, three attorneys have been promoted from associate to special counsel. These new shareholders and special counsel represent the firm's four core departments – Casualty, Professional Liability, Health Care and Workers' Compensation – and come from 8 of the firm's 19 offices.

“This class of newly elected shareholders embodies the traits that make Marshall Dennehey a special place,” said
G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “They are hard working, dedicated, talented lawyers whose exceptional contributions have been pivotal to the success of the firm and our clients. We congratulate them on their well-deserved promotions and look forward to their future achievements as we continue the firm’s growth.” 

Promoted to Shareholder

ORLANDO, FLORIDA
Peggy Smith Bush, Casualty Department (former Special Counsel)
Peggy is an experienced litigator, advocate and counselor who routinely defends corporations, large self-insureds, and public entities in complex litigation involving claims of personal injury and wrongful death. Clients value the strategic thinking and results-oriented litigation skills she brings to matters involving transportation, premises liability, product liability, negligent security, as well as general liability claims. Peggy is a graduate of the University of North Alabama and Barry University School of Law. She is admitted to practice in Florida, the U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit, and before the U.S. Supreme Court.

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Ryan P. Friel, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Ryan defends a variety of clients as a member of both the Securities & Investments Professional Liability and Privacy and Data Security Practice Groups. He represents FINRA member firms, registered representatives, and registered investment advisors in state and federal court as well as in FINRA arbitration and expungement proceedings and a wide range of investigations, examinations, inquiries, and enforcement matters. Ryan also defends clients in privacy-related litigation and technology-related litigation, and conducts regulatory investigations across many industries in matters stemming from data privacy and security incidents. He is a graduate of Fairfield University and Syracuse University College of Law. Ryan is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania.

Benjamin M.H. Goshko, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Ben focuses his practice on construction, trucking/transportation, product liability, and hospitality matters. He defends claims on behalf of construction contractors, product manufacturers, property owners, restaurants, and hotels in litigation involving fire losses, negligence, auto accidents, catastrophic injuries, and wrongful death. Ben is a graduate of Temple University and Temple University Beasley School of Law. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 

Kara A. Pullman, Professional Liability Department (former Special Counsel)
Kara defends employers in claims involving allegations of discrimination based upon age, gender, race, sexual orientation and disability, and also handles retaliation and whistleblower claims in federal and state courts and administrative agencies.  Additionally, she provides counsel to clients regarding employment matters, including ensuring that policies and procedures are legally compliant and up to date. She also defends school districts in cases alleging violations of the IDEA and related federal and state statutes, and has handled numerous special education due process matters. Kara is also experienced in the areas of municipal liability and civil rights and has represented police departments, police officers, and school boards in cases relating to civil rights and discrimination in the state and federal courts. She is a graduate of St. Joseph’s University and Rutgers University School of Law, Camden. She is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
Gregory P. Graham, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Greg defends corporations and professionals in commercial, construction, and class action litigation. He also defends attorneys in legal malpractice actions involving civil and family disputes, business transactions in the real estate and oil and gas industries, and commercial litigation. Greg's construction practice includes the representation of owners, contractors, and design professionals from defect and commercial loss claims related to the construction industry. Admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, he is a graduate of Michigan State University and the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.


KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Stephen G. Keim, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Stephen represents clients in motor vehicle accidents, premises liability, product liability, business litigation, and professional liability matters. He also has significant experience defending attorneys, real estate brokers and agents, accountants, and architects against professional liability claims. A graduate of Kutztown University of Pennsylvania and the William S. Boyd School of Law, he is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 

Christin L. Kochel, Professional Liability Department (former Associate)
Christin focuses her practice on insurance coverage matters and civil litigation, with emphasis on automobile liability and uninsured/underinsured motorist claims. She is also experienced in defending premises liability, homeowner's insurance, minor's compromise, and other general liability claims and suits. She is a graduate of Bloomsburg University and Widener University School of Law and is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

ROSELAND, NJ
Heather M. LaBombardi, Health Care Department (former Associate)
Heather concentrates her practice on medical malpractice and health care liability matters. She routinely defends physicians, nurses, health care providers, and medical facilities against medical malpractice claims. She additionally has written several appellate briefs and argued multiple times before the New Jersey Appellate Division. She is a graduate of the University of Miami and earned an M.S. in management from Nova Southeastern University before obtaining her J.D. from Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School. She is admitted to practice in New Jersey and New York. 

Paul W. Lanza, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Paul concentrates his practice primarily on trucking/transportation liability, premises/retail liability, and construction injury litigation. He also handles cases involving condominium/community association law, automobile liability, product liability, and malpractice claims against real estate professionals. He is frequently retained by clients to handle the pre-suit investigation of high-exposure cases involving complex issues of fact and law, including fatal commercial vehicle accidents. Paul is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Seton Hall University School of Law. He is admitted to practice in New Jersey and New York.

NEW YORK CITY
Andrew Thebaud, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Andrew represents clients in the fields of construction injury litigation, retail liability, product liability, automobile litigation, commercial trucking litigation and property litigation. His clients include construction companies, maintenance companies, retail stores, and product retailers, among other clients. He also handles a significant amount of retail and premises liability cases. He is a graduate of the University at Albany (SUNY) and the University of Virginia School of Law, and is admitted to practice in New York.

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Associates Promoted to Special Counsel

MOUNT LAUREL
Mari I. Gangadean, Professional Liability Department
Mari defends employers in employment-related claims involving allegations of discrimination based upon age, gender, race, sexual orientation, and disability, as well as retaliation and "whistleblowing" in both federal and state courts. She additionally has extensive experience in insurance coverage and bad faith litigation, as well as defending automobile negligence and uninsured/underinsured motorist claims. A graduate of Mount Holyoke College, she earned her law degree from Temple University School of Law. She is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

PHILADELPHIA
Angeline C. Panepresso, Casualty Department
Angeline devotes her practice to a variety of litigation matters including premises liability, product liability, automobile liability, and construction liability. She is a graduate of Lehigh University and Widener University School of Law and is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 

WESTCHESTER
Sanford G. Jacobs, Casualty Department
Sanford has over 30 years of experience in trucking & transportation liability, general liability, premises liability, motor vehicle liability, construction injury litigation, products liability, and toxic torts. His extensive experience includes handling cases from inception through jury trial throughout the New York Metropolitan area, upstate New York, and the state of Florida. He is a graduate of the State University of New York at Oneonta and Western Michigan University Cooley Law School. He is admitted to practice in New York, the District of Columbia, and Florida. 
 

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

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

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

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

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter