.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2023

June 1, 2023

RECOGNITION
Congratulations to Brigid Alford (Harrisburg, PA) on her selection to the Central Penn Business Journal’s 2023 Power List for Law! The honorees are some of the Central Pennsylvania region’s most significant, influential, and respected leaders in their fields, as chosen by the CPBJ’s editorial leadership team and readers. 

Mike Turner (Philadelphia, PA) was recently elected a Fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers.

Clients Name Marshall Dennehey to the BTI Client Service 100
Marshall Dennehey has earned a coveted spot in the BTI Client Service 100 report, as recommended by corporate counsel. The report is based on research with more than 24,000 buyers of professional services, who rank firms according to performance of 17 activities that drive superior client relationships. Among the report’s findings, Marshall Dennehey was also one of only 50 law firms named to the BTI Midsize Client Service Masters list.

The survey is one of the leading measures of its kind. Rankings are purely research-driven and are not subject to law firm submissions, self-referrals, suggestions, or payments.

“At Marshall Dennehey, superior client service is our number one priority and it is gratifying that BTI’s data reflects that commitment,” said G. Mark Thompson, our firm’s president and CEO. “With every case and file that is entrusted to us, we seek to partner with our clients to understand their needs, effectively resolve their litigation, and exceed expectations. We are grateful to them for this recognition.” 

For more information about the report, please visit https://bticonsulting.com/bti-client-service-a-team. 

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2023 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
Eight attorneys from Marshall Dennehey’s Mount Laurel and Roseland, New Jersey offices have been selected to the 2023 edition of New Jersey Super Lawyers magazine. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected as Super Lawyers and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for Super Lawyer Rising Stars. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. A description of the selection methodology can be found at http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html. 

2023 New Jersey Super Lawyer
•    Robert T. Evers (Roseland, NJ): Personal Injury: Medical Malpractice Defense
2023 New Jersey Super Lawyer Rising Stars 
•    Ariel C. Brownstein (Mount Laurel, NJ): Insurance Coverage
•    Christopher J. DiCicco (Mount Laurel, NJ): Transportation/Maritime Litigation. 
•    Ryan Thomas Gannon (Roseland, NJ): Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice Defense. 
•    Heather M. LaBombardi (Roseland, NJ): Medical Malpractice Defense. 
•    Paul W. Lanza (Roseland, NJ): Personal Injury, General, Defense. 
•    Brian A. Rice (Mount Laurel, NJ): Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice Defense. 
•    Brielle K. Winkler (Mount Laurel, NJ): Insurance Coverage. 

 

OTHER NEWS
Jason Banonis (King of Prussia, PA), Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s past president, was recently appointed to Defense Research Institute’s State Legislation and Rules Task Force.

Stephanie Ransom, CLM, assistant office manager of our NYC and Roseland, NJ, offices, has been appointed Vice Chair of the Certification Committee at the Association of Legal Administrators (ALA). Stephanie was appointed to the committee last year and continues to rise in leadership in the national organization. 

Michael Salvati (Philadelphia, PA) has been selected to serve a five-year term on the Civil Jury Instructions Subcommittee of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The subcommittee is charged with maintaining, overseeing and updating the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s standard civil jury instructions as facilitated and published by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. 

 

PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Oner Kiziltan (Fort Lauderdale, FL) authored the article, “Proving Insurance Fraud: Is Metadata the Missing Piece of the SIU Puzzle?” in the March 24, 2023, edition of Insurance Journal. You can read his article here.

Jennifer Meyers’ (Westchester, NJ) article “When Is It Too Late to Change Your Theory of the Case?” was published in the March 10, 2023, issue of The New York Law Journal. You can read her article here.

Michael Salvati (Philadelphia, PA) published the article “A Two-Pronged Test Becomes One - Why the Superior Court’s Venue Decision in Hangey Departs from Decades of Prior Precedent,” appearing in the January/February 2023 issue of The Pennsylvania Lawyer. The article attracted the attention of Law360, who republished it (with permission), under the title, “Pa. Supreme Court Must Defend Established Venue Standard.” You can read his article here.  

Ray Michaud’s (Mount Laure, NJ) article “Develop the Helpful Habits to Ward Off Litigation” was published in the Spring 2023 issue of Pennsylvania CPA Journal, the publication of the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants. You can read Ray’s article here.  

Lauren Purcell and Patrick Reilly (Pittsburgh, PA) teamed up to author “Protecting Your Bar from Claims in the Wake of ‘Mortimer’,” which was published on February 15, 2023, in The Legal Intelligencer. You can read their article here.  

Dana Gittleman’s (Philadelphia, PA) article “4 Terms to Avoid When Advertising Your Insurance Agency,” was published on IndependentAgent.com on February 9, 2023. Click here to read her article.  

Steven Christman’s and Fabrice Michel’s (New York, NY) article “Prejudgment Interest Accruing from Date of Accident: What Will This Mean for Resident, Courts?” was published in the April 13, 2023, issue of New York Law Journal. You can read their article here. 

Hunter McMullin’s (Philadelphia, PA) article “Potential Clarity on Pennsylvania’s Murky Products Liability Landscape,” was published in the April 6, 2023, edition of The Legal Intelligencer. You can read his article here.  

Michele Punturi’s (Philadelphia, PA) article “Why Contest Mental Health Claims in Workers’ Comp When You Can Prevent Them to Begin With?” was published in the March 28, 2023, issue of Risk & Insurance. You can read Michele’s article here.

Paul Laughlin (King of Prussia, PA) authored the article “Choosing a Mediator for Your Medical Malpractice Case: One Size Does Not Fit All,” appearing in The Legal Intelligencer’s Medical Malpractice Supplement, published on March 28, 2023. You can read the article here.  

William Murphy’s (Roseland, NJ) article “Under the Influence of the Intoxication Defense: Differing State Law Can Affect Workers’ Compensation Claims for Workplace Injuries” was published in the April 2023 edition of CLM Magazine. You can read his article here. 

Greg Graham and Carly Edman (Pittsburgh, PA) authored the article “Retooling the Client Engagement Letter to Minimize Liability Claim Exposure,” appearing in the March 23, 2023, edition of PLUS Blog, the blog of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society. You may read the article at this link.  

Josh Byrne and Alesia Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) authored the article, “When Disciplinary Counsel Knocks on Your Door, How Do You Respond?” in the March 20, 2023, issue of The Legal Intelligencer. Read the article here.  

“Top Ten Ways an Insurance Broker Can Avoid Liability,” by Estelle Kokales McGrath (Pittsburgh, PA) was published by the National Association of Professional Agents on March 1, 2023. You can read her article here.

 

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
Matthew Keris (Scranton, PA) presented “Radonda Vaught Lessons: The Ethical Challenges of Managing Dual Legal Investigations” at the DRI Medical Liability and Health Care Law Seminar. Matthew also presented the American Legal Connections webinar “Best Practices for an Audit Trail Expert Deposition.”

Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) participated in two seminars at the annual Insurance Fraud Management Conference. Jeff moderated “Legal Update Panel” and participated in “Identification of SIU Suggested Best Practices.”

Raymond Michaud (Mount Laurel, NJ) spoke at the New Jersey Chapter of the American Water Works Association Annual Conference. His presentation, “Case Studies in Ethics for Engineers,” focused on the water crisis in Flint, Michigan and the ethical behaviors of engineers.

Jon Cross (Philadelphia, PA), Christopher DiCicco (Mount Laurel, NJ), Jay Hamad (New York, NY), A.C. Nash (Fort Lauderdale, FL), David Shannon (Philadelphia, PA), Robin Snyder (Philadelphia, PA), and Sunny Sparano (Roseland, NJ) recently participated in ILG 360° London Annual Conference 2023. Our attorneys presented practice area-specific webinars in areas such as concussion litigation, aviation, cyber risk and systemic threats, changes in the construction industry, marine cargo claims and claims inflation in property and casualty litigation. All of our presenters guided participants through case studies and interactive sessions, addressing key issues of importance to claims professionals and insurance industry personnel. For background, Marshall Dennehey is a founding member of Insurance Law Global (ILG), a multi-jurisdictional network of like-minded independent insurance defense law firms. The network is committed to helping clients respond to the challenges and opportunities presented by globalization and the increasingly diverse needs of the insurance industry. You can watch the conference in its entirety here: https://www.ourevent.tv/ilg23. 

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) spoke at the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s annual Civil Litigation Update. John spoke on notable case law and procedural rule developments over the past year.

Brooks Foland (Harrisburg, PA) presented “The Mediator’s Role as Convener” at the Pennsylvania Council of Mediators 35th Annual Conference in Harrisburg.

Janice Merrill (Orlando, FL) presented at the Orlando Health Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nurses Society meeting on the “Pitfalls of Pressure Injury Litigation.”

Mohamad Bakry (Philadelphia, PA) co-presented “Power Jackpots and Life Care Plans: What’s the Difference and What Can Be Done About It?” at the FDCC winter meeting. This panel discussed a survey of trends that defense counsel are seeing in life care plans, assessed techniques for challenging the underlying assumptions of those plans, and explained how to defend against these huge damages claims. 

Thomas Brown (Orlando, FL) discussed carshare and rideshare liability issues and best practices for defending against claims at the Florida Defense Lawyers Association’s webinar.

Jack Delany (Philadelphia, PA), an adjunct professor at Temple Law School’s Trial Advocacy Program LLM, presented “Nuts and Bolts Trial Strategy in a Post-COVID, Social Unrest, and Nuclear Verdict Time Period.”

Harold Moroknek (Westchester, NY) and Preston Holmes (Westchester, NJ) presented “What To Do When Stopped by Law Enforcement” at the American Bus Association, The Bus Industry Safety Council meeting.

A.C. Nash (Fort Lauderdale, FL) office joined a panel at the International Association of Professional Security Consultants (IAPSC) conference, where he discussed “Testimony from Intake to Trial.” The presentation took security experts through the stages of a new case, addressing intake, investigation, formulating opinions, and testifying at trial. 

Elizabeth Ferguson (Jacksonville, FL) presented “Can We Have It All?” at the Florida Bar Construction Law Institute’s Women in Construction Networking Breakfast.

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) presented a seminar on civil litigation developments for the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform. The seminar was held at the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association facility in Harrisburg and was attended by representatives from more than forty insurance carriers and corporations.

James Cole (Philadelphia, PA) presented “Untying Tangled Titles – Recognizing How Property Title Issues Drive Fraud” at the 2023 Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Conference.

James Cole (Philadelphia, PA), Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ), and Christopher Woodward (Harrisburg, PA) were featured speakers at the 2023 Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Conference. Presented by IASIU (Delaware Valley and Greater Pittsburgh Chapters) and the Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Prevention Authority (IFPA), Jim and Chris presented “Untying Tangled Titles – How Property Insurance Drives Fraud,” and Jeff presented a “Legal Update.” 

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented at the Camden County Bar Association’s Civil Practice Update. Jack presented on various updates pertaining to Legal Malpractice Liability and Expert Strategy Parameters in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Accutane. Jeremy presented on recent updates pertaining to the Affidavit of Merit Statute and case application and also moderated this panel discussion, which included various members of the bench and the bar in Camden County. The seminar was well attended and is considered a seminal event within the Camden County Bar Association. 

Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) participated in the presentation “Ethics and Malpractice Avoidance” at the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Mid-Year Meeting along with Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy and Michael Furlong of CNA. Josh also presented at the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Bench-Bar meeting on “Practicing with Integrity” with Chief Disciplinary Counsel Thomas Farrell, Judge Tiffany Palmer, and Judicial Candidate Kay Yu.

Shannon Fellin and Katherine Bavoso (Harrisburg, PA) were speakers at the Workers’ Compensation Bench and Bar Best Practices 2023 forum. They joined a panel of distinguished industry professionals to discuss “Ethics, Professionalism, Civility, & Culture.” 

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) participated in a panel discussion at the CLM Annual Conference. The panel focused on increasing diversity and sustaining organizational change in the claims industry. In “Building a Better Business, Achieving a More Diverse Future,” the panelists talked about how diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts have taken center stage in the workplace and identified emerging recruitment and retention strategies that employers can utilize to achieve a more diverse future. The session also included an analysis of effective ways to maintain diverse vendor teams while building stronger partnerships in claims handling in the legal industry. 

Frank Wickersham (King of Prussia, PA) presented at the 19th Annual Worker’s Compensation Insurance ExecuSummit. In his “State of the Union - Medical Marijuana,” Frank discussed the ongoing efforts around the nation, via lawsuits and legislation, to obtain clarity on medical marijuana coverage for injured workers. Frank also co-presented “One Less Zombie in the Workers’ Compensation Apocalypse” at the CLM 2023 Workers’ Compensation, Casualty & Risk Management Conference. This seminar addressed strategies for dealing with the relentless issue of opioids and the growing reliance on cannabis in workers’ compensation.

Heather Carbone (Jacksonville, FL) was the keynote speaker at the 2023 International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP) Annual Southeast Florida Workers’ Compensation Claims Conference. Heather’s topic was “Talking About Generations.”
 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2023, 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. © 2023 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

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.