.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…King of Prussia Office: A Historic Legacy and a Dynamic Future of Legal Excellence

Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 4, December 2025

December 1, 2025

by Michael L. Detweiler

Situated in the shadow of Valley Forge and the rich history of the Revolutionary War, the King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, office is steeped in history. The office itself has a long history of servicing the counties adjacent to Philadelphia, in addition to Philadelphia. Though once located in the Montgomery County seat of Norristown, this office now sits not far from the King of Prussia Mall and an always active Top Golf facility. The office is also steeped in firm history as it has been affiliated with many of the firm’s founders and leaders through the years, including Jack Warner, Tom Brophy, Christopher Dougherty, Joe Santarone, and Wendy Bracaglia, to name a few.

Today, with approximately 40 attorneys and 60 staff employees, the King of Prussia office is one of the firm’s largest branch offices and one of the largest law offices in Montgomery County. The office has long serviced Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties. We consolidated with our Doylestown and Allentown offices several years ago, and we now also service Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Lehigh, Monroe, Northampton, and Schuylkill Counties. The addition of attorneys from other offices and the acquisition of key talent from other firms through the years has created a dynamic team comprised of attorneys with numerous backgrounds, skill sets, and perspectives.

The health care team has been a powerful engine for the office for years and continues to flourish. The group has long-standing client relationships with health care systems and providers throughout eastern Pennsylvania and continues to develop new relationships. Led by attorneys Robin Snyder and Donna Modestine, the group continues to grow, even with the recent retirements of several key health care attorneys in the past several years. In 2024, Gary Samms, one of the most sought-after trial attorneys in Pennsylvania, joined an already stalwart group of attorneys: Joan Ford, Joe Hoynoski, and Gabor Ovari. Recent special counsel and associate additions in the past several years include Kevin Majernik, Jonathan Landua, Evan Pentz, David McColloch, and Julianna Malloy, all of whom have joined us from other firms and have added to an already strong and highly-regarded unit. 

Despite retirements of several experienced and senior attorneys in the past several years (we will sorely miss Mark Riley and Ed McGinn when they retire at year’s end) from the Casualty Department, we have pivoted and recently welcomed several talented and energetic associates—Khaliyah Pugh, Richard Lechette, and Ashley Stasak—to our core casualty group, consisting of Michele Frisbie, Michele Krengel, Tim Hartigan, Ed Tuite, and Rob Morton, in addition to those attorneys who strengthened our group after joining us from the Allentown office: Jason Banonis, Steve Keim, and Wendy O’Connor. The casualty attorneys handle a wide array of high-exposure casualty matters, ranging from construction personal injury to serious auto and premises liability matters and everything in between. 

Frank Wickersham, Judd Woytek, Tony Natale, Michael Duffy, and Anna Jaoudi comprise the office’s workers’ compensation unit, which routinely achieves favorable results on behalf of their clients and is very well-regarded by the workers’ compensation bar. Tony and Anna also work in our Medicare Compliance Practice Group, providing the entire firm with an invaluable resource in reaching solutions for often complicated questions created by settlements and Medicare issues.

Finally, the firm is fortunate to have a group of attorneys who handle a wide array of professional liability matters. They include Audrey Copeland, who handles appeals; Gregory Kelley, who focuses on professional liability and construction defects; Maureen Fitzgerald and Christin Kochel, who handle a wide variety of professional liability cases; and Paul Laughlin, who handles professional liability and health care cases. These added practice areas, and the skill with which these attorneys practice, ensure that the office, the firm, and our clients have access to invaluable resources and representation in numerous practice areas. 

The office is defined, in large part, by the skill and talent of its attorneys, but it has had its share of characters and levity through the years, too. There has never been a shortage of social events (Top Golf, happy hours, associate dinners), games (trivia night), music (a staple on the “Class Action” tour circuit) and the occasional awkward photo of an office attorney from yesteryear. The office has always embodied one of the defining features that makes Marshall Dennehey special and unique: “A culture where humor is the great equalizer, and no one is above the friendly jest.” The office is also blessed with hard-working and talented paralegals and support staff, who are an integral part of our success and are led by our dedicated and tireless office manager, Suzie Spitko.

One of the office’s primary strengths remains its versatility, both in the various practice groups that provide skilled lawyering and in its capacity to provide representation in numerous venues in eastern Pennsylvania. We have always thrived, in great part, due to our flexibility and adaptability and in bringing on new talent to continue our tradition of excellence. In many ways, the King of Prussia office serves as a microcosm of the firm at large: rich in history but poised for great things moving forward. 

Mike is the managing attorney of our King of Prussia, PA office. He can be reached at 610-354-8271 or MLDetweiler@mdwcg.com. 

Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 4, December 2025, 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. © 2025 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

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. 

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

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. 

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.

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

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.

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.

News

John J. Hare Featured in Pennsylvania & Delaware Super Lawyers Magazine