.

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

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.

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

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

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.

News

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

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. 

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.

News

Marshall Dennehey Again Earns Recognition in Distinguished Chambers USA