.

Defense Digest

Message From the Executive Committee

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2023

June 1, 2023

by Craig S. Hudson

Beginning in April 2021 and extending through the end of this April, Marshall Dennehey added 14 lateral shareholders. While public pronouncements were issued at the time each joined our firm, I want to introduce them again as a group, to show how the addition of these shareholders reaffirms our continuing commitment to be the go-to civil defense firm in every jurisdiction where we practice. 

This influx of new, experienced attorneys took place in nine out of our 19 offices, in six states, and in all four of our practice departments. These shareholders augment our already deep roster of talented and experienced litigation specialists. They have an average of over 28 years of legal experience, representing clients in federal and state court. Together, they have handled over 375 jury trials and countless non-jury trials, arbitrations, mediations, and administrative hearings. Collectively, they have handled every imaginable type of civil litigation, and each of their practices and experiences add depth to our existing practices. Many of them are active in national, state, and local bar associations and industry groups, are frequent lecturers to attorneys and claims professionals, and are contributors to several legal publications. 

Seven of the shareholders who joined Marshall Dennehey over this period are in our Casualty Department. The most high-profile of these occurred this past October, when Jack Delany, a prominent, international, catastrophic damage trial attorney, decided to join our firm. Joining Jack as shareholders from his previous firm are Kristen Worley and Andrew Campbell. Jack and his team have been counsel in some of the most significant national and international civil litigation in recent memory, including lawsuits stemming from the Grenfell Tower fire in London, the Surfside condominium collapse in Florida, a recent factory explosion in Pennsylvania, and many other high-profile catastrophic events. Within weeks of joining Marshall Dennehey, Jack, Kristen, and Andrew began a large construction defect case in which the plaintiffs sought over $24 million in damages. After a three-week trial in federal court, the jury returned with a unanimous defense verdict. 

In February 2021, Melissa Devich Cochran was the first of the 14 shareholders to join Marshall Dennehey. Melissa was already familiar with Marshall Dennehey, having previously been a 12-year Marshall Dennehey attorney, who decided to return after several years at another firm. She rejoined our Pittsburgh office in our Asbestos and Mass Tort Litigation Practice Group. Melissa quickly settled back into familiar surroundings, bringing with her deep client relations and extensive knowledge and experience in defending national equipment manufacturers, outside contractors, and suppliers in asbestos litigation throughout Western Pennsylvania. 

Later in 2021, Vince Cononico joined our Cleveland office from a major insurance company’s staff counsel office where, for over 25 years, he handled a variety of significant automobile, premises liability, uninsured/underinsured motorist, and other personal injury matters throughout Ohio. Vince has first-chaired over 50 jury trials and several times was acknowledged by the insurance company as having the highest winning percentage of the staff counsel in his region. 

In 2022, John Yaninek, a 33-year trial attorney, joined our Harrisburg office. John, who is admitted in both Pennsylvania and Maryland, handles a variety of complex casualty matters in both states. John’s experience extends beyond his injury cases, as he has also defended clients in white-collar criminal cases and clients in real estate E&O matters. John is a decorated U.S. Army veteran of the Gulf War, where he managed legal issues for the Army in occupied Iraqi territory during the ground conflict. John retired from the Army Reserve as a Lieutenant Colonel.

Just a few months ago, Keith McCabe joined our New Haven office, which we opened in February of 2022. Keith brings to this rapidly-growing office over 30 years of litigation experience, defending personal and commercial clients in the Connecticut federal and state courts. Keith has tried over 75 jury cases to verdict in a broad range of cases, including those that involve catastrophic injuries and deaths. 

Four of the 14 lateral shareholders joined our Health Care Department. The first is Bill Gianaris, who joined our Westchester office where he represents hospitals and medical providers in the five boroughs of New York City and upstate New York. A 34-year attorney, Bill spent the first 14 years of his career as an Assistant District Attorney in Queens County where he tried numerous criminal cases. Since leaving the District Attorney’s office, Bill has been primarily defending medical liability and general liability matters. He has tried numerous high-exposure cases involving medical professional liability across New York.

Near the end of 2022, Suzanne Utke joined our Health Care Department in Philadelphia. Suzanne, who was a critical care nurse before going to law school, has over 20 years of experience defending physicians, nurses, and health care providers against medical and psychiatric malpractice claims. She also represents professionals in peer and credential reviews before various State Boards. 

This year, two additional shareholders joined our Health Care Department. In March, David G. Tomeo, a litigation leader with more than 30 years of experience across New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York, joined our Roseland office. In addition to his medical professional liability practice, Dave handles commercial and business litigation and insurance coverage matters. Dave is also frequently called upon to defend urgent care center franchisors in medical malpractice suits and handles other matters at the intersection of franchise and medical malpractice law. 

A few weeks later, experienced medical malpractice litigator Tracey S. McGurk joined Marshall Dennehey as a shareholder in the firm’s Cleveland office. A member of the Health Care Department, she focuses on the defense of medical professionals and providers, including physicians, hospitals, and nursing home/extended care facilities. In addition to her medical liability experience, Tracey also represents non-medical professionals, primarily real estate agents and agencies, in a variety of E&O and commercial matters. 

Two of the 14 shareholders who joined Marshall Dennehey over the last 24 months are in our Workers’ Compensation Department. The first is Michael Sebastian, who joined our Scranton office and has represented employers in workers’ compensation matters for over 30 years. Mike came to us with a loyal client following and vast experience at all levels of the workers’ compensation system. 

Next, Kristopher Starr joined our Wilmington office. Kris started his legal career as a Deputy Attorney General, prosecuting criminal cases. The Delaware Secretary of Labor appointed Kris as a Workers’ Compensation Hearing Officer, where he spent three years issuing opinions and orders, before leaving the bench to represent public and private employers, which he continues to do. 

Finally, Josh J.T. Byrne joined our Professional Liability Department in 2021 as a shareholder in the Philadelphia office. A well-known attorney in the Pennsylvania legal community, Josh has over 24 years of experience representing and defending clients in a variety of professional liability matters, as well as assisting those clients with professional disciplinary and licensing matters. Josh is a frequent commentator on legal malpractice, disciplinary matters, and attorney ethics. He also serves as chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Professional Liability Committee, co-chair of the Pennsylvania Bar’s Amicus Curiae Brief Committee, and co-chair of the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Professional Responsibility Committee.

The successful integration of these 14 attorneys is the result of a disciplined process we employ at Marshall Dennehey. More than ten years ago, we created the role of Lateral Integration Coordinator to assist new shareholders in their transition to the firm. Since that time, Sandy Caiazzo, who is also Director of Administrative Services, has held this position. Sandy is the key internal point of contact for all lateral attorneys joining our firm. She works closely with these laterals before, during, and after their arrival to ensure a timely start and seamless transition. Many of these lateral shareholders brought with them other associates or special counsel, paralegals, and administrative staff, and Sandy oversees their onboarding as well. 

Among her responsibilities, Sandy liaises with the firm’s administrative departments to ensure that conflict searches are performed, client guidelines and rates are obtained, and press releases and marketing materials are prepared. From day one, she ensures that lateral shareholders who join Marshall Dennehey have the technological and administrative resources and training tools necessary to enable them to hit the ground running. Each of the 15 new shareholders was uniformly impressed with our lateral integration process and marveled at how quickly they were assimilated into Marshall Dennehey.

I am very pleased to highlight the addition of our remarkable new lateral shareholders, who further enhance our firm’s extraordinary litigation talent across our many jurisdictions, offices, and practice areas. To a person, these new attorneys saw Marshall Dennehey as the perfect firm in which to further develop their careers and build meaningful professional and personal relationships. I am humbled by their confidence in us, and I firmly believe that they made the right decision in joining us. With their transitions eased by the efficiency of Sandy Caiazzo’s team and our firm’s many other administrative and technological resources, our new lateral shareholders position Marshall Dennehey very well for continued success in the service of our clients. I am also confident that, over the coming months, Marshall Dennehey will have the opportunity to welcome other lateral shareholders who will continue our tradition of finding the right attorneys to serve our clients. 

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 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.

Firm Highlights

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

PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher

A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Marijuana Legalization and Workplace Risk: What New Jersey Employers Need to Know

While the legalization of recreational marijuana usage poses a risk of increased work-related accidents for younger workers, employers can work to curb this increase by investing in education, effective drug policies, and employee assistance programs.

graphic with Maria Granaudo photo text announces she has joined the firm as a shareholder in the Health Care Dept.

News

Maria R. Granaudo Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Wilmington Office As a Shareholder in the Health Care Department

News

Christina Gonzales To Speak at the Women of Color Roundtable at DRI’s Diversity and Inclusion Seminar

News

Marshall Dennehey Again Earns Recognition in Distinguished Chambers USA

Event

29th Annual FDLA Florida Liability Claims Conference

Jim and Erica will team up to present, "Supporting the Next Generation: Connecting with Associates." This panel-style presentation will explore communication best practices from the perspective of a senior shareholder and newer associate. The discussion will focus on the communication styles of different generations and effective strategies to avoid communication breakdowns. Topics to be discussed include the hiring process, perceptions of defense work among newer lawyers, work-life balance issues after hiring, and mentoring.

Thought Leadership

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

Freight brokers are intermediaries.  They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods.  Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents.  At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).  Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA .  Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption.  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA.  That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies. 

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.