.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

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

December 1, 2025

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

Dana Gittleman (Philadelphia, PA) and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) recorded Episodes 2 and 3 of their PLUS podcast, “Insurance Agent E&O – Top Ten Tips for Risk Management.” Episode 2 discusses key strategies for risk management in professional liability litigation—the importance of establishing personal contact with clients, retaining the right liability expert, and understanding the critical nuances of underlying litigation in E&O claims. You can listen here: https://plusweb.org/podcast/insurance-agent-eo-episode-2/. Episode 3 dives into four critical areas for insurance professionals and defense counsel: assessing related litigation, understanding business relationships, staying organized, and getting creative with case strategy. With real-world examples and practical insights, they offer listeners actionable tools to strengthen claims handling and professional liability defense. You can listen to the final episode here: https://plusweb.org/podcast/insurance-agent-eo-episode-3/. 

 

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

Robert Aldrich and Melissa Dziak (both of Scranton, PA) co-presented “Navigating the Digital Shift: Balancing the Benefits and Legal Risks of Patient Portals” at the 2025 ASHRM annual conference. Along with Gina Kittek, System Director, Risk Management & Corporate Compliance at United Health Services, Rob and Melissa discussed mitigation strategies for managing the risks associated with the use of patient portals and how the reliance on patient portals impacts medical malpractice laws.

Christopher Block (Roseland, NJ) served as faculty for the School of Casualty Claims at the CLM Alliance (Claims and Litigation Management Alliance) annual Claims College this past September in Baltimore. He shared strategies and tools that claims professionals can apply to help them better manage their case files.

Ariel Brownstein and Matthew Burdalski (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) and Gary Lesser (Roseland, NJ) co-presented “NJ PIP - A DRPA’s Perspective” at the 34th New Jersey Special Investigators Association’s Seminar & Networking Conference. Ari and Matt also co-presented “Ping! Utilizing Modern Technology to Answer the Who, Where and When” at the NYAct 2025 Annual Education Conference.

Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) co-presented at the Philadelphia Bar Association’s 2025 Bench-Bar & Annual Conference. Josh joined Marie C. Dooley, member of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, to present “Pennsylvania’s Attorney Disciplinary Process and Our Changing World.” The session reviewed the attorney discipline process in Pennsylvania with a particular emphasis on how it has changed over the last year with significant opinions from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The duo also examined potential ethical/disciplinary issues related to changes to the environment for attorneys since the new administration took office. Josh also presented at “Succession Planning for Law Firms and Lawyers 2025,” a Pennsylvania Bar Institute program focused on helping attorneys and firms build continuity, retain key client relationships, and develop the next generation of leaders.

Christopher Conrad (Harrisburg, PA) co-presented “Left Behind? Today’s U.S. Department of Education and the Potential Impact on Special Education and Disability Services” at Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s Exceptional Children Conference.

Jon Cross (Philadelphia, PA) served as a panelist at the International Adventure & Trampoline Parks Association annual conference in Maricopa, Arizona. The panel’s presentation, “Defensibility Strategies – Reduce Liability: Supervision & Documentation,” focused on risk management practices to help park operators and entities minimize liability and strengthen their defense against potential claims and incidents.

Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) co-presented “Auto Law Update 2025” for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, an annual update for auto law practitioners.

Heather Carbone and Linda Farrell (both of Jacksonville, FL) were presenters for The Florida Bar’s Workers’ Compensation Section webinar on “Florida’s New Rules of Civil Procedure and Impact on Workers’ Compensation Claims.” Heather and Linda discussed the interplay between the new Florida Rules of Civil Procedure involving discovery and the Rules of Procedure for Workers’ Compensation Adjudications, Chapter 60Q-6. The webinar specifically addressed the updated Rule 1.280 and how it may be applied to workers’ compensation cases and/or civil cases that have an impact on workers’ compensation claims. They also discussed proportionality and what mechanisms should be used to apply the new discovery rule.

Matthew Keris (Scranton, PA) recently co-presented a CLE for the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform. “Medical Malpractice in Pennsylvania” featured a panel discussion exploring a number of emerging legal issues in medical malpractice, such as the continuing surge of Philadelphia cases; the dilution of plaintiffs’ burden to prove agents’ causation; preserving issues on appeal and waiver rulings of the Superior Court; ethical concerns with double and triple booking; and the rise of punitive damages.

Mark Kozlowski (Scranton, PA) presented on Civil Rights and the 14th Amendment at Marywood University’s “The Courts and Our Community” Lecture Series. The semester-long workshop was presented by Marywood University’s Center for Law, Justice, and Policy. Designed to introduce students to key legal concepts and foster civic awareness, the sessions offered direct engagement with judges, attorneys, and legal scholars. 

Paul Krepps (Pittsburgh, PA) presented “Litigating Qualified Immunity” at the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania Insurance Programs Defense Counsel meeting in Harrisburg. The program, part of the Pennsylvania Counties Risk Pool, brings together defense counsel who represent counties and related entities throughout the state. 

Megan Nelson (Orlando, FL) presented a CLE on “Incident Reporting from a Lawyer’s Perspective” to the members of the Central Florida Chapter of the American College of Health Care Executives. As an attorney and registered nurse, Megan offered insight into the importance of incident reporting from both a health care and legal point of view. 

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) joined attorneys from the claimant’s and defense bars, the judiciary, and the Appeal Board for an in-depth CLE program on the past and future of the Workers’ Compensation Adjudicatory System. Hosted by the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Workers’ Compensation Section, panelists examined historical transformations in the practice of workers’ compensation, spanning from in-person hearings at the State Office Building to modern day hearings and virtual practice.

Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) co-presented “Artificial Intelligence-Legal Considerations” at the joint National Insurance Crime Bureau/National Conference of Insurance Crime Attorneys national conference. Jeff also co-presented “Building a Better Major Case Investigation” with Derek Maki of Liberty Mutual at IASIU - Michigan Chapter’s annual fall seminar. Jeff and Derek discussed the changing face of medical fraud, ring activity and fraud fighting post-Covid. He presented “AI Vendor Management” to the attendees of the New Jersey Special Investigators Association Fraud Summit. Finally, Jeff participated in the webinar “Trends in Insurance Panel Counsel” hosted by AM Best’s Insurance Professional Resources.

Robin Romano (Philadelphia, PA) was a co-presenter at the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Workers’ Comp Fall Section Meeting in Hershey, PA. During her presentation, “Civility in Practice,” Robin discussed the importance of treating all parties involved in litigation with respect, professionalism and fairness to promote effective communication and foster trust, and ultimately lead to more efficient and just outcomes in the claims process. The discussion explored practical strategies for fostering civility across all roles in the system, challenges to maintaining professionalism under pressure, and tools for improving communication and collaboration.

Suzanne Tighe (Philadelphia, PA/Scranton, PA) joined the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s Auto Law Update 2025, sharing insights on the latest developments and trends shaping auto law practice across Pennsylvania. The focus of her presentation was “Ridesharing and Computer Rental Issues.”

John Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) participated in the New Jersey State Bar Association’s CLE 2025 Trial Bootcamp: Master the Art of Trial Advocacy. Jack and the Honorable Christine P. O’Hearn, U.S.D.J. and Dennis J. Drasco, Esq. co-presented “Selecting the Jury.” 

 

PUBLISHED WORKS

November 17, 2025 – “Your Engagement Agreement as a Defense Against Fee Disputes,” by Alesia Sulock and Josh J.T. Byrne (both of Philadelphia, PA) was published in The Legal Intelligencer. 

November 10, 2025 – Daniel McGannon’s (Harrisburg, PA) article “Redefining Harm: Did SCOTUS Expand Title VII Protections in ‘Muldrow v. City of St. Louis’?” was published in The Legal Intelligencer’s Labor & Employment/Workers’ Compensation Supplement. 

November 10, 2025 – John Paul Abda’s (Scranton, PA) article “PTSI and First Responders: Act 121—A New Era in Pa. Workers’ Compensation” was published in The Legal Intelligencer’s Labor & Employment Law/Workers’ Compensation Supplement. 

October 28, 2025 – “Pennsylvania Supreme Court Strengthens Legal Protections for Home Inspectors,” by Dana Gittleman (Philadelphia, PA) and Danielle Vugrinovich (Pittsburgh, PA), was published on PLUS Blog.

October 22, 2025 – Anthony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) authored the article, “Compensating the Boys of Fall - College Sports May Soon Face the Ultimate Call: Player or Employee?” appeared in CLM Magazine. 

Fall 2025 – “From Instagram to the Jury: Lessons in Digital Evidence Authentication,” by Brad Haas (Pittsburgh, PA) was published in PAMIC Magazine. 

September 19, 2025 – “Status of ‘Gist of the Action’ in Legal Malpractice Claims Following Swatt v. Nottingham Village,” by Alesia Sulock and Josh J.T. Byrne was published in The Legal Intelligencer. 

 

RECOGNITION

John Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) was among 11 attorneys honored by the New Jersey Judiciary for their pro bono service. Acting Administrative Director Michael J. Blee said, “Pro-bono work is a sacred obligation for all attorneys, and an essential part of being an upstanding member of our legal community. Without the services of attorneys working pro-bono, our justice system could not function.” 

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

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

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. 

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

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

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. 

News

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