.

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

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

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Exclusion of Legal Malpractice Expert as Impermissible Net Opinion

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias obtained a favorable decision on behalf of their client in a case centering on the admissibility of expert testimony in legal malpractice actions. In Martin v. Loury, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the exclusion of a plaintiff's legal malpractice expert, holding that the expert's opinions on causation and damages were too speculative to support the malpractice claim. The legal malpractice action arose from an underlying employment dispute involving claims for damages stemming from the breach of an employment agreement. The plaintiff alleged that defense counsel committed malpractice during a second trial by failing to recall the plaintiff as a rebuttal witness after the employer's CEO testified. According to the plaintiff's expert, additional rebuttal testimony would have bolstered the plaintiff's damages claims and led to a more favorable result. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division rejected that theory. The courts found that the expert could not explain how the proposed rebuttal testimony would have altered the outcome of the underlying case or resulted in any additional recoverable damages. Notably, the trial judge in the underlying employment matter had already rejected the CEO's testimony as not credible and had accepted the damages analysis advanced by the plaintiff. The court had also determined that the amount of damages was not genuinely disputed. As a result, the expert's opinion that additional rebuttal testimony would have produced a better outcome was unsupported by the record and based on speculation rather than evidence. The Appellate Division agreed that neither the plaintiff nor the expert could identify any actual damages attributable to the alleged malpractice or demonstrate the required element of proximate causation. The court further upheld the trial court's application of New Jersey's net opinion doctrine, finding that the expert failed to provide the necessary "why and wherefore" supporting his conclusion that the attorney's conduct caused a compensable loss. Because the opinions rested on unquantified possibilities rather than demonstrable facts, they were inadmissible. Key Takeaway for Legal Malpractice Defendants For attorneys and firms defending legal malpractice claims, Martin v. Loury underscores the importance of closely scrutinizing an opponent's expert report on the critical elements of proximate causation and damages. The decision demonstrates that a malpractice claim cannot survive where an expert merely speculates that different litigation tactics might have produced a better result. Instead, the plaintiff must present admissible expert testimony grounded in the record that explains how the alleged attorney error probably changed the outcome of the underlying matter and resulted in measurable damages.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Court Allows Recklessness and Punitive Damages Claims to Proceed After Work‑Zone Crash

In a case where a defendant filed preliminary objections against allegations of recklessness and punitive damages, the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas denied these preliminary objections. This case stems from a motor vehicle accident, where the defendants car struck the plaintiffs car after the defendant allegedly fell asleep at the wheel, going at a high rate of speed, through a construction work zone. Defendant first objected to the general allegations throughout the plaintiff’s complaint pertaining to “reckless” conduct contending that there were insufficient factual allegations to support the claim of reckless conduct. Defendant next objected to the plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, as punitive damages may only be assessed against a motorist for falling asleep while driving if there is further evidence to prove driver was aware of their drowsiness and risk of falling asleep. Lastly, defendant objected to plaintiffs complaint, claiming it lacked specificity. The court here found that the plaintiff had included in the complaint specific allegations related to the defendant’s alleged recklessness, including allegations regarding speeding in a work zone, almost striking the flagger, falling asleep at the wheel, and striking the plaintiffs vehicle which was stopped. Additionally, the court noted that falling asleep does not come without warning. The court found that these allegations were sufficient to support an allegation of recklessness at the pleadings stage.

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.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Thought Leadership

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Holds That Public Policy Does Not Prevent Insurance Coverage for Sex Trafficking Claims

On July 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an opinion emphasizing the limited circumstances in which courts may invoke public policy to bar insurance coverage, holding in Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (U.S. Branch) v. RI Settlement Trust that Pennsylvania public policy does not preclude coverage for claims alleging that insureds enabled or profited from human sex trafficking. The decision rejects a line of federal district court decisions predicting otherwise and reinforces that Pennsylvania courts will invoke the public policy doctrine only in the clearest of circumstances. RI Settlement is particularly significant because it arose on certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, giving the Supreme Court the opportunity to resolve an issue on which federal courts had predicted Pennsylvania law differently. RI Settlement arose out of four separate civil complaints in which the underlying plaintiffs alleged that, as minors, they were the victims of human sex trafficking at various hotels in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs claimed that the hotel owners were negligent in failing to stop the sex trafficking from happening at their hotels. After the filing of the lawsuits, the hotel owners sought coverage under their Commercial General Liability policies. The insurers initially defended the hotels under Reservation of Rights letters, though the carriers later filed Declaratory Judgment actions seeking declarations that they did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify. In short, the insurers argued in the alternative that they did not owe any obligation to provide coverage based upon Pennsylvania public policy (because the claims violated the Human Trafficking Law – 18 Pa.C.S. § 3011) and the terms and conditions of the policy. On motions for judgment on the pleadings, the District Court found for the insurers on the basis of public policy: There is no duty to defend or indemnify against actions arising out of an insured's criminal conduct related to the sex trafficking of minors. The Court appreciates that it may make public policy the basis of a judicial decision only in “the clearest of cases.” See Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 589 A.2d 854, 868 (Pa. 2004) (quoting Hall v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 648 A.2d 755, 760 (Pa. 1994)). Yet, the Court strains to imagine a clearer case than the one presented here in which the facts alleged indicate that Policyholders engaged in criminal conduct in violation of Pennsylvania's Human Trafficking Law. The hotel owners appealed the matter to the Third Circuit, which petitioned the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to grant review of two certified questions of law: (1) whether Pennsylvania law had an “overriding public policy” against sex trafficking, such that an insurer’s duty to defend and/or indemnify is abrogated when an insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from such trafficking; and (2) if yes, is that duty abrogated whenever the insured’s alleged conduct would constitute a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Trafficking statute. Importantly, the certified questions did not ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the policies afforded coverage under their terms. Rather, the court was asked only whether Pennsylvania public policy independently barred coverage. As a result, the court assumed for purposes of answering the certified questions that the insurers otherwise owed a duty to defend and addressed only the public policy issue, leaving all policy-based coverage defenses for further proceedings. Because the court concluded that the answer to the first certified question was “no”, it did not reach the second issue. In reaching its determination that Pennsylvania public policy does not prohibit insurance coverage for sex trafficking claims, the court limited the impact of its decision in Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 855 A. 2d 854, 855 (Pa. 2004), which the RI Settlement opinion emphasized as having been an “Opinion Announcing Judgment of the Court” – or a plurality opinion. In Greenfield, the insured homeowner was sued by the estate of his houseguest who overdosed from heroin that he sold to her. The matter wound its way to the Supreme Court, which determined that the insurer did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify based upon Pennsylvania public policy, which criminalized the sale and use of heroin as a Schedule I narcotic. In RI Settlement, the court “decline[d] the invitation” to extend the rationale of the three-justice plurality in Greenfield beyond cases involving Schedule I controlled substances. In so holding, the justices in RI Settlement refused to “divine an overriding public policy pronouncement by the General Assembly by virtue of its enactment of the Human Trafficking Law.” The opinion further states that it is not “within the purview of this Court to rank the magnitude of the public policy underlying the various crimes defined in the Crimes Code. It is sufficient for the work of the courts to know that the General Assembly has identified conduct it deems harmful and dangerous to the maintenance of an orderly society and criminalized it.” While the court declined to declare that Pennsylvania public policy prohibits coverage for sex trafficking claims, the opinion in RI Settlement expressly states that insurers are free to include appropriate exclusionary language for such causes of actions in their policies if they desire to do so. It will certainly be interesting to see whether the insurance industry accepts the court’s invitation, or perhaps whether the Pennsylvania legislature steps in to clarify that sex trafficking claims are indeed of the type or magnitude that they should not be covered by insurance. In any event, we will, of course, continue to monitor this and other insurance coverage issues that arise before courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and throughout our firm’s geographic footprint and around the country.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars