.

Defense Digest

Message From the Executive Committee

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 2, March 2021

March 1, 2021

by Craig S. Hudson

In the previous Defense Digest, you were provided with a link to a well-deserved and moving video tribute to Chris Dougherty, my predecessor as director of the Professional Liability Department and a member of the Executive Committee, who stepped down from both positions at the end of 2020. If you have not yet watched the video, I urge you to do so. I can envision no greater honor and privilege than to succeed my friend, Chris, as the director of the Professional Liability Department.

Settling into this new position has caused me to reflect on my 28 years at Marshall Dennehey. In 1993, I was a senior associate at the Liebert Short law firm. I was invited to join a group of the partners that had decided to join Marshall Dennehey. I was considering my options when Bob Coleman, who “ran” Marshall Dennehey at the time, called and asked me to meet with him. I did, and we spent an hour together. During our conversation, Bob told me of his vision for Marshall Dennehey’s future. When he was done, I knew that Marshall Dennehey was the firm for me. I said, “Yes.” To this day, I consider my decision to join the firm to be one of my best.

When I first started at Marshall Dennehey, I was part of the Casualty Department. Over the ensuing years, I was fortunate to work with and learn from some very fine attorneys, including Harry Short, Eric Weiss, Keith Heinold and Tom Brophy. I handled a mix of cases, ranging from motor vehicle product liability cases to defending Sesame Place (always an advantage to be representing Big Bird).

A couple of years into my time at Marshall Dennehey, Bob Coleman again called and asked that I come to his office. As I walked down the hall to meet him, I had more than a little bit of trepidation. Bob told me that he recalled from our initial meeting that I told him that one day I would like to get involved in firm management and not just handle cases. Bob said he wanted to give me a chance to see if this was really something I wanted and could do. He asked if I would like to oversee the summer law clerk program. I followed my father’s advice to never turn down opportunities presented to you by your boss (and believe me, Bob was the boss). A couple of years later, I was asked to get involved in associate recruiting. Again, I said yes. I then worked closely with and later succeeded Howard Dwoskin as the firm’s attorney hiring coordinator. I have to admit I take some pride in the fact that some of the attorneys I recruited have become leaders in our firm.

A few years later, I was “recruited” to practice in the Professional Liability Department. Again, I agreed. A short while later, I started working with Phil Toran and Chris Dougherty, who was then the assistant director of the Professional Liability Department, on recruiting and hiring associates. I also was tasked with providing some oversight and direction to the department’s lawyers who practiced out of the Philadelphia office.

After several years in this role, a new opportunity arose. By then, the firm had entered the Florida market, and by 2005, its four offices were growing. Marshall Dennehey’s base was solid, with Mark Thompson as the manager of the Orlando office, but there was a need to strengthen the firm’s additional offices in Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville and Tampa. I just so happened to be part of a conversation among Phil Toran, Peter Miller and Tom Brophy, where it was stated that the Fort Lauderdale office might benefit from having a stronger connection to Philadelphia. Having recently returned from a business trip to our Florida offices, I somehow thought it was a good idea to suggest that I might be willing to go to Florida and take on that role. Phil, Pete and Tom were surprised and intrigued to hear that I would even consider doing so. Wisely, they suggested that I should first discuss the idea of moving to Florida with my wife, Connie. Good advice. That night I went home and told her what had transpired and what I was contemplating. Fortunately for me, Connie was supportive of the idea. And so, after 22 years of practicing in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, I took and passed another bar exam (with the same MBE score), and in July of 2006, relocated to Fort Lauderdale where I became the managing attorney of the Fort Lauderdale office and the supervising attorney of the Florida Professional Liability attorneys.

In addition to my management duties, I also handled cases. When I first arrived in Fort Lauderdale, we had a small office. All of the attorneys had to handle a variety of cases. Over the next 13 years, I handled almost every type of professional liability case. I have represented lawyers, accountants, real estate and insurance agents, architects and engineers, debt collectors, and HOA and condominium boards. Over the last several years, I also handled a number of employment matters. I tried cases in state and federal courts in all four of the South Florida counties.

During the next 14 years, Marshall Dennehey emerged as one of the leading civil defense firms in Florida. Today, we have a combined 67 attorneys practicing out of our four Florida offices.

This bring us to 2020. Little did any of us envision what that year had in store for us. For me, startling and life-changing events of 2020 started a bit earlier than for many of you. You see, I turned 60 in January of 2020, and Connie planned a short vacation to celebrate. A day after my birthday, we were walking on the beach, talking about the past and future. Although we both missed certain things about Philadelphia, we liked living in Florida. I was enjoying my position as regional manager of the Florida offices, having succeeded Mark Thompson in that role following his elevation to president and CEO. I was looking forward to the upcoming years working with the attorneys in Florida as we continued to grow our presence in the state. While this may sound a bit too “new age” for me, I had reached a state of contentment. Little did we know that our world would change two days later. That was when Mark Thompson came to Fort Lauderdale for a surprise visit. Mark told me that the Executive Committee would like Connie and me to agree to return to Philadelphia so I could become the assistant director of the Professional Liability Department and eventually succeed Chris when he retired. Again, following my father’s advice, I agreed. Lucky for me, so did Connie.

Since February 2020, I have spent my time becoming re-acquainted with Philadelphia, reconnecting with long-term friends and colleagues, and getting to know the shareholders, associates, paralegals and staff who make up the Professional Liability Department. I have been busy—the department has 120 attorneys in 17 distinct practice groups covering a wide variety of specialties. This past year I have come to appreciate, more than ever, those attorneys, paralegals and staff members—a group of talented men and women who are dedicated to providing our clients with top-notch legal representation. They care about the work they do and the services they provide.

Going forward, I pledge to continue the vision and drive for excellence first established by Phil Toran, and then honed by Chris Dougherty. Both of them set the standard for providing top-level service to our clients in a cost-effective manner. We strive to be effective advocates for our clients, while treating everyone, including opposing counsel and the judiciary, with respect. As the director of the Professional Liability Department, I bring my years of management and leadership experience and my 20+ years of legal experience gained from defending professionals and other entities in Pennsylvania and Florida.

As a member of the Executive Committee, I have the good fortune to work with my friends and colleagues, Howard Dwoskin and Mark Thompson. We share a commitment to providing clients with excellent legal representation and service, which has been, and will continue to be, the hallmark of our law firm. Doing so with a sense of humor and respect for one another is what makes Marshall Dennehey the place I am so glad I said “Yes” to 28 years ago.

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 2, March 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 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. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. 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

Commonwealth Court Holds That a Claimant Who Was Struck By a Car While Crossing the Street During an Unpaid Break Was In the Course and Scope of Employment

This case involved a claim petition filed by a claimant who sustained injuries after being struck by a vehicle while crossing the street in front of the employer’s premises. The employer denied the claim based on course and scope, as the accident occurred during one of two mandatory fifteen (15) minute breaks provided to the claimant. The claimant would punch out at the beginning of a break and punch back in when the break was over.  On the date of the incident, the claimant punched out and left the building to get lunch at a restaurant, which required her to cross the employer’s parking lot, and then a public street, where the injury occurred. The Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ) dismissed the petition, noting that that during the two mandatory fifteen-minute breaks per shift allowed by the employer, the claimant was free to leave the employer’s premises, and during breaks, permitted to engage in whatever activity she desired. The WCJ found that at the time of the accident, the claimant was on her own time, in the middle of the street, and going to get lunch.   The claimant filed an appeal with the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board), and the Board reversed.  According to the Board, the claimant’s location was still on the employer’s premises, as the claimant was taking her customary route while using a reasonable ingress/egress from the employer.  Further, the Board found that the “Personal Comfort Doctrine” applied, as the claimant was on a momentary departure to take care of her personal comfort, within the window of time she was allotted for her break.  The Board remanded the case, and a WCJ granted the claim petition.  The Board affirmed, and the employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Before the Court, the employer argued that the claimant was not in the course and scope of her employment, because the injury did not occur on its premises, and the claimant was outside the bounds of the Personal Comfort Doctrine. The Court, however, rejected these arguments, and dismissed the employer’s appeal.  The Court noted that the break given to the claimant was so cursory, when she set out to relieve her hunger for her own personal comfort,  she remained in the course of her employment when she sustained her injuries.  A Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the Supreme Court has been filed by the Employer, Giant Eagle.

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

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

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/

Thought Leadership

Appellate Court Rejects Horizontal Immunity Defense to Company Not Acting as Statutory Subcontractor

The First District Court of Appeal held that a property management company was not entitled to horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in a negligence action brought by an employee of another company working on the property. The claimant was injured while servicing a swimming pool at an apartment complex. His employer had contracted with the property owner to maintain the pool. Following the accident, the claimant received workers' compensation benefits through his employer’s carrier. The claimant subsequently filed a negligence action against the property management company, alleging that it failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn him of a dangerous condition that caused his injuries. The property management company had been retained by the property owner to maintain the complex in good operating condition and to perform routine maintenance and repair work. The property management company argued that it was immune from suit under section 440.10(1)(e) of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law. That provision grants immunity to a subcontractor providing services in conjunction with a contractor on the same project or contract work from civil actions brought by employees of another subcontractor, subject to limited exceptions. According to the property management company, it qualified as a subcontractor working on the same project as the claimant’s employer and was therefore entitled to horizontal immunity. The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment in its favor. On appeal, however, the claimant argued, and the appellate court agreed, that horizontal immunity applies only when a contractor has sublet work arising from a contractual obligation owed to a third party. The court noted that prior decisions consistently held that an entity acting solely on its own behalf as the owner of property, rather than pursuant to a contract with a third party, is not a “contractor” under section 440.10(1), even when it hires other companies to perform work on the property. In Teed, the property management company could not establish that the property owner had a primary contractual obligation to a third party to maintain either the apartment complex or the swimming pool, which it then delegated to the claimant’s employer or the property management company. As a result, the property owner did not qualify as a statutory contractor, and the property management company was not a subcontractor entitled to horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e). The First District therefore reversed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings on the claimant’s negligence claim.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Legislation Updates

Since June 1, 2026, there have been no new New Jersey workers’ compensation related cases from the Appellate or Supreme Courts. As such, below will highlight any new legislative updates since February. A1023 | S3984 - Medical Use of Cannabis Under Certain Circumstances This requires workers’ compensation, PIP, and health insurance coverage for the medical use of cannabis under certain circumstances. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee. It was also introduced on March 19, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. A1045  - Certain Injuries to Volunteer and Professional Public Safety and Law Enforcement Personnel This revises workers’ compensation coverage for certain injuries to volunteer and professional public safety and law enforcement personnel. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A1384 | S2757 - Reduce Statute of Limitations in Medical Fee Disputes This reduces statute of limitations from six years to two years in medical fee disputes in workers’ compensation matters. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A1870 | S1379 - Workers' Compensation Benefits For Certain Workers Due to September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks This provides workers’ compensation benefits for certain public safety workers who developed illness or injury as result of responding to September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On February 5, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. A2779 | S1521 - Excludes Certain Illegal Aliens This excludes certain illegal aliens from workers’ compensation and temporary disability benefits. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A2792 | S1555 -  Prevent Intoxicated Employees from Workers’ Compensation This prevents intoxicated employees from receiving workers’ compensation. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A3167 | S2372 - Workers’ Compensation Insurance Requirements for Certain Corporations and Partnerships This concerns workers’ compensation insurance requirements for certain corporations and partnerships. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A3548 | S3571 – Maximum Benefits for Certain Volunteers This provides certain volunteer and other workers with maximum compensation benefit for workers' compensation claim regardless of outside employment. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On March 2, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly State and Local Government Committee. A3724 - Personal Liability to Employer Officers for Failure to Pay for Coverage This provides personal liability for owner, executive officer, or executive director of employer for failure to pay for workers' compensation coverage. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee. A4617  - Certain Workers' Compensation Supplemental Benefits and Funding Method This concerns certain workers' compensation supplemental benefits and funding method. For a permanently and totally disabled worker or surviving dependents after December 31, 1979, with some exceptions, this bill provides for an annual cost of living adjustment in the weekly workers’ compensation benefit rate. It was introduced on March 10, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. S241 - Inclusion in Database of Appointed Officials This requires that workers’ compensation judges and administrative law judges be included in database of appointed officials. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 to the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee. S2290 -  Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 72. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. S3144 - Testimony in Workers’ Compensation This concerns submission of testimony in workers’ compensation claims. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. S3342  - Increase Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 75. It was introduced on February 5, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.