.

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

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Recreational Immunity for County Under Landowners' Liability Act

In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc. v. Middlesex County Parks Department, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of Middlesex County Parks Department, holding that the county was immune from liability under New Jersey's Landowners' Liability Act (LLA), notwithstanding its failure to plead the immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Complaint. The case arose from injuries sustained by fourteen-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Kuzma, while playing basketball at Spring Lake Park in South Plainfield on August 23, 2019. The plaintiff observed a crack in the basketball court before beginning to play but did not consider it dangerous. During the game, his foot became caught in the crack, causing him to fall and suffer a significant ankle injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted in ongoing physical limitations and deprived him of the opportunity to play collegiate basketball. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendants negligently maintained the basketball court. Although the county did not assert LLA immunity as an affirmative defense in its answers, it later moved for summary judgment on that basis. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the county had waived the defense by failing to plead it. The county maintained that the plaintiff had received sufficient notice of its intent to rely on the LLA through discovery and therefore suffered no unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, concluding that the county should be permitted to invoke statutory immunity notwithstanding its failure to formally plead the defense. Relying heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court's guidance in Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen, holding a county park was subject to the immunity of the LLA, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the county's failure to plead LLA immunity did not preclude reliance on the defense under the circumstances presented. The court determined that the plaintiff had received adequate notice of the immunity claim through discovery and that permitting the defense furthered the public-policy objectives embodied in the LLA. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's injury and the general societal interest in maintaining parks and recreational facilities in a safe condition. However, the court emphasized that both the legislature and the New Jersey Supreme Court have expressed a clear policy choice to limit liability for public and private landowners who make recreational property available for public use. The decision reinforces the courts' continuing adherence to the Landowners' Liability Act and the principle that recreational lands and facilities should be broadly protected from liability exposure, even in cases involving significant personal injuries.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law