.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 1, March 2023

March 1, 2023

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2023 Shareholder Class - Largest in Firm’s 60-Year History

Marshall Dennehey is pleased to announce that 20 attorneys, 12 men and eight women, have been elevated to shareholder, effective January 1, 2023. The class is the largest in the firm’s 60-year history and all but one were previously associates of the firm. These new shareholders represent the firm’s four core departments – Casualty, Professional Liability, Health Care, and Workers’ Compensation – and come from 12 of the firm’s 19 regional offices. They are:

Robert J. Aldrich, III, Health Care Department
Jillian L. Dinehart, Casualty Department
Daniel Dolente
, Health Care Department
Benjamin K. Durstein, Workers’ Compensation
Adam Fogarty, Casualty Department
Melanie J. Foreman
, Casualty Department
G. Michael Garcia, II, Casualty Department
Andrew C. Goldstein
, Casualty Department
Brad E. Haas, Casualty Department
Kimberly House
, Casualty Department
Sara W. Mazzolla, Casualty Department
Michael S. Miller, Jr., Casualty Department
Nadia E. Niazi, Casualty Department
Lauren E. Purcell, Casualty Department
Josie A. Scanlan, Casualty Department
Kelly Scifres, Workers’ Compensation Department
Mark Volpi, Casualty Department (formerly Special Counsel)
Christian A. Weimann
, Casualty Department
Robert E. Williams, Casualty Department
Jeremy J. Zacharias, RPLU
, Professional Liability

 

RECOGNITION

Marshall Dennehey Named Among 2022 Most Recommended Law Firms by BTI Consulting Group

BTI Consulting Group, the leading provider of strategic market research to the legal community, has recognized Marshall Dennehey as a law firm that top legal decision makers frequently recommend. In its report, BTI Most Recommended Law Firms 2022, Marshall Dennehey is among 77 firms that are frequently recommended by corporate counsel. “These firms separate themselves by exceeding client expectations, earning the coveted unprompted client recommendation,” stated the BTI report.

BTI Most Recommended Law Firms 2022 draws on data collected in BTI’s ongoing Annual Survey of General Counsel, which this year included more than 340 in-depth telephone interviews with GCs at organizations with $700 million or more in revenue.

Earlier this year, Marshall Dennehey was named to the BTI Associate Satisfaction A-Listers 2022: BTI Survey of Law Firms Where Associates are Happiest. Among the report’s findings, a large number of women associates named the firm distinguished in activities associates value most in deriving high levels of job satisfaction at law firms. For more information about both reports, please visit www.bticonsulting.com.

 

Marshall Dennehey Named a 2022 “Tipping the Scales” Firm by the Diversity & Flexibility Alliance

Marshall Dennehey has been named a 2022 “Tipping the Scales” law firm by the Diversity & Flexibility Alliance, as reported in the organization’s New Partner Report. Each year the Alliance compiles data from the nation’s largest and top-grossing law firms to examine the gender breakdown of attorneys promoted to partnership in their U.S. offices.

Marshall Dennehey is one of 57 law firms who have been recognized in the report for having 50% or more women in their 2022 new shareholder class. In announcing the report results, the Alliance stated, “By promoting equal numbers of men and women to Partner, you have signaled your commitment to gender parity and your understanding of the value that women in leadership bring to your firm and your clients.”

Earlier this year, Marshall Dennehey was named to the BTI Associate Satisfaction A-Listers 2022: BTI Survey of Law Firms Where Associates are Happiest. Among the report’s findings, a large number of women associates named the firm distinguished in activities associates value most in deriving high levels of job satisfaction at law firms.

 

Marshall Dennehey Named a 2023 “Best Law Firm” in Multiple Practice Areas By U.S. News - Best Lawyers®

Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin has been named a “2023 Best Law Firm” in multiple practice areas, both nationally and across numerous regions of the country, by U.S. News – Best Lawyers®. Nationally, the firm ranked in the practice areas of Admiralty & Maritime Law and Insurance Law.

The U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in the field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. To be eligible for a 2023 ranking, a law firm must have at least one lawyer recognized in the 27th Edition of The Best Lawyers in America list for that particular location and specialty.

Ranked firms, presented in three tiers, are listed on a national and regional-based scale. Firms that received a tier designation reflect the high level of respect a firm can earn among other leading lawyers and clients in the same communities and practice areas. A description of the selection methodology may be found here: https://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/methodology.aspx.

NATIONAL TIER 1

  • Admiralty & Maritime Law

NATIONAL TIER 3

  • Insurance Law

METROPOLITAN TIER 1

  • Harrisburg: Litigation – Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
  • Jacksonville: Construction Law; Litigation – Construction; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants
  • New Jersey: Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants
  • New York City: Admiralty & Maritime Law
  • Philadelphia: Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants;
  • Pittsburgh: Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

METROPOLITAN TIER 2

  • Cleveland: Insurance Law; Litigation – Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants
  • Harrisburg: Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers
  • Jacksonville: Commercial Litigation; Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
  • Philadelphia: Civil Rights Law; Commercial Litigation
  • Pittsburgh: Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers
  • Tampa: Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

METROPOLITAN TIER 3

  • Delaware: Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
  • Pittsburgh: Litigation – Health Care
  • Tampa: Commercial Litigation

 

SEMINARS

Robert Aldrich (Scranton, PA) presented “Hot Topics in Healthcare” at the Pennsylvania Association of Health Care Risk Management (PAHCRM) conference.

Brigid Alford (Harrisburg, PA) was the moderator and a featured speaker at the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s “Settlement Strategies and Tips 2022” webinar. Other panelists included Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and Magistrate Judge Lisa Lenihan from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The seminar drew more than 160 attendees from throughout the state.

Kimberly Berman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) co-presented “Insurer Malpractice Claims Against Defense Counsel: Recognizing, Defending, and Preventing Potential Claims.” This webinar guided insurance defense counsel through the increasingly important topic of insurer claims against defense counsel for legal malpractice committed while defending the insured. The program reviewed common errors, whether a cause of action exists and who may assert it, how liability is established, whether and how work restrictions and counsel guidelines imposed on defense counsel affect liability, how damages are proved, and whether and how the attorney-client privilege or work product protection of the insured affects the case. Kimberly also moderated a panel titled “Brief Writing for the Third DCA” at the Florida Bar’s Appellate Practice’s Practicing Before the Florida Third District Court of Appeal 2022 CLE Seminar.

Christopher Block (Roseland, NJ) presented “Mastering the Professional Malpractice Mediation” at the Professional Liability Defense Federation’s (PLDF) annual meeting in Chicago.

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) joined a Pennsylvania Bar Institute panel presentation, “Essential Ethics 2022,” focusing on email privacy and security, ethical challenges when lawyers change jobs, and fundamentals of the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Process. Josh also participated in the Dauphin County Bar Association’s Member Benefit Compliance Session. Josh co-presented the ethics portion titled “PBA Malpractice Avoidance.”

Samuel Cohen (Philadelphia, PA) spoke on a panel at the Alternative & Direct Investment Securities Association trade conference in Las Vegas. The panel was titled “Hiring with Caution: How One Bad Apple Can Spoil Your Business.”

Christopher Conrad (Harrisburg, PA) presented “Safe Schools and Bullying” at the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s Exceptional Children Conference. Christopher also co-presented “Special Education Litigation: Best Practices for Avoiding Liability, and Strategies for a Successful Defense” at the Professional Liability Defense Federation’s (PLDF) annual meeting in Chicago.

John Deasy (Pittsburgh, PA) recently presented “Defending Roller Skating Claims” at a chapter event for the Roller Skating Association in Pittsburgh.

Angela DeMary (Mount Laurel, NJ) participated on a panel at the 33rd Annual New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Bench Bar Conference Moving Forward Together in a Time of Change. Angela’s topic was “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & the Elimination of Bias in Workers’ Compensation – Why This Matters to You and Your Clients to Achieve the Best Possible Outcome.”

Brooks Foland (Harrisburg, PA) led a practical and interactive Pennsylvania Bar Institute CLE program along with a distinguished panel of ADR professionals titled “Using ADR for Your Practice,” which focused on ADR and Mediation. Brooks also co-moderated the webinar “In the Zoom: Ins and Outs of Remote Mediation” for the Dauphin County Bar Association.

Melanie Foreman (Philadelphia, PA) spoke at the Claims X Change annual conference. She joined a panel to discuss “Three’s Company: Navigating Claims Management Within the Parameters of the Tripartite Relationship.”

Janes Hanratty (Jacksonville, FL) presented “Fresh Approaches to Enhance the Effectiveness and Productivity of Mediations.” Presented at the Jacksonville Bar Association Mediators and Trial Lawyers CLE Forum, Jim and fellow panelists discussed fresh approaches to enhance the effectiveness and productivity of mediations.

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) spoke at the 2022 Convention of the Defense Research Institute. John addressed the history and notable decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. John also spoke at the 2022 Pennsylvania Governor’s Office of General Counsel University, the yearly training program for attorneys in the executive branch of state government. There were more than 500 live attendees. John spoke at the invitation of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and discussed the Court’s functions and notable decisions.

Mark Kozlowski (Scranton, PA) presented “Employment Law Basics – The Basis of OSHA, FLSA, ADA & More,” as the final presentation in an HR 101 Series for the Northeast Pennsylvania Chapter of the Society for Human Resource Management.

Mary Kate McGrath and Adam Fulginiti (Philadelphia, PA) gave a Telehealth Presentation at the Pennsylvania Association of Health Care Risk Management (PAHCRM) conference.

Harold Moroknek (Westchester, NY) presented at the recent Auto Haulers Association Fall Expo in Orlando. His topic was “Where Are You Leaking? Pain Points and Missteps: Things That Cost a Motor Carrier Unnecessary Defense and Indemnity Dollars.”

A.C. Nash (Fort Lauderdale, FL) presented “Talkin’ Bout My Generations” at the RIMS, Broward County Chapter meeting.

Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) recently sat down with AM Best’s Insurance Law Podcast to discuss workers’ compensation fraud. You can listen to the podcast here: https://lnkd.in/eTMvMkVe.

Tony Natale and Robin Romano (Philadelphia, PA) were co-presenters at last year’s Philly I-Day conference. Their session, “Hot Topics in Worker’s Comp and Litigation Trends,” focused on trends and case law that are making waves in Pennsylvania workers’ compensation litigation, including unreasonable contest, discharge from employment issues within a workers’ compensation case, head injuries with post-concussion syndrome, and specific loss and extension to full body. Robin and Tony analyzed the impact of these cases on future similar litigation and provided tips for mitigating exposures and liabilities from a risk management perspective. The presentation was attended by local insurance, claims and legal professionals.

Jeff Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) participated in various sessions at the International Association of Special Investigation Units (IASIU) conference. In “The Management of Brand Protection,” Jeff joined a panel that explored current risks in investigative insurance fraud while balancing the importance of protecting a company’s brand. The use of desk investigations, pass through claims, post-COVID major case, and best practices were explored. Other topics included avoiding bad faith, proper statement techniques, and technology integration between claims and SIU. Jeff also co-presented “Legal Update: Emerging Legal and Legislative Trends in Fraud Fighting,” where a panel of legal experts involved in insurance fraud defense discussed current and emerging legal and legislative trends in the fight against fraud. Finally, he presented an Ethics session focused on investigator ethics, and heard comments and critiques on current case law impacting the SIU and how it relates to the ethical investigation of insurance fraud moving forward.

Suzanne Utke (Philadelphia, PA) taught a course, “Medical Legal Issues for Physicians Assistants,” for Thomas Jefferson University’s Physicians Assistant program. The class was attended by more than 110 students. As an adjunct professor, Suzanne has taught this course for more than 20 years.

Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) was a panelist at the Rutgers School of Law’s Professionalism Seminar. This seminar is offered twice a year, and Jeremy is a recurring panelist. He discussed the defense of ethics grievances and the RPCs in the state of New Jersey. The audience included first year law students learning about the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the panel included a federal judge and an attorney from the Public Defender’s Office. Jeremy discussed the importance of the Rules of Professional Conduct in daily practice as well as applications of the Rules of Professional Conduct in practical examples.

Jeremy also presented at an all-day CLE for the New Jersey State Bar Association titled “Commercial Real Estate Transactions: from Fist Bump to Closing.” Jeremy’s section related to ethical considerations pertaining to commercial real estate and the new age of cannabis litigation and the use of commercial space for cannabis dispensaries. Jeremy’s topic focused on the Rules of Professional Conduct and the various duties to disclose certain information during real estate transactions in a commercial setting and duties to third parties relying on an attorney’s advice.

Lary Zucker (Mount Laurel, NJ), Alicia Caridi and Sara Mazzolla (Roseland, NK) made presentations at the International Association of Amusement Parks & Attractions (IAAPA) annual Conference. Together, they presented the annual Legal Roundtable. Larry also presented “IALDA Game Show” and “New Jersey Ride Regulations and ASTM.”

 

OTHER NEWS

Melanie Foreman (Philadelphia, pa) has been elected to the Board of Trustees of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation. She will serve a three-year term, effective January 2023.

Robert Williams (Jacksonville, FL) served as Master of Ceremony for the first of the Inn year meeting as current president for a local chapter of the American Inns of Court held in Jacksonville, Florida. In attendance was Judge Nordby, First District Court of Appeal of Florida, as guest speaker, as well as two Judges of Workers’ Compensation’ Claims.

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, pa) was quoted in The Legal Intelligencer article, “ ‘They’ll Get Theirs’: Attorneys Strategize When Depositions Get Heated.” You can read the article here: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2023/01/13/theyll-get-theirs-attorneys-strategize-when-depositions-get-heated/

Michael Packer (Fort Lauderdale, FL) was quoted in the Insurance Law Journal article, “New Florida Law Makes Joint Settlement Offers ‘Legit’ Buy May Not Go Far Enough.” You can read the article here: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2023/01/06/701949.htm

 

 

PUBLISHED ARTICLES

Kimberly Kanoff Berman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) co-authored “A Not-So-Little Problem with Precedent: Intra-District Conflict in Florida District Courts of Appeal.” This article appeared in January/February 2023 edition of Florida Bar Journal. You can read it here: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/a-not-so-little-problem-with-precedent-intra-district-conflict-in-florida-district-courts-of-appeal/#u6daa

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) co-authored “Settle and Sue Your Lawyer: The Muhammad Doctrine Under Fire,” which was published in the January 2023 issue of Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly. You can read the article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/settle-and-sue-your-lawyer-muhammad-doctrine-under-fire. Josh’s article “What Is Worse Than Hiding Your Head in the Sand? A Few Examples” was published in The Legal Intelligencer on November 18, 2022. You can read the article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/what-worse-hiding-your-head-sand-few-examples

Jillian Dinehart (Cleveland) discusses municipalities’ rights and liabilities in weapons and ordnance legislation in the December issue of Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Journal, the publication of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association. Read now: https://lnkd.in/ehndqCax

Evan Dubow and Alexander Mendez (Fort Lauderdale, FL) discuss a recent lawsuit filed by a luxury car dealership against a major foreign auto manufacturer, which has the potential to significantly change the way cars may be sold throughout Florida. To learn more about The Collection’s fight against Porsche AG’s attempt to transition to a direct-to-consumer sales model, read their article in Auto Dealer Today. You can read their article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/porsche-paving-new-sales-model-or-will-dealerships-still-have-collection-cars

Dana Gittleman’s (Philadelphia, PA) article, “Discovery Rule Still Rules in Legal Malpractice Actions,” was published by PLUS Blog. You can read the article here: https://plusblog.org/2023/01/12/discovery-rule-still-rules-in-legal-malpractice-actions/

Gregory Graham (Pittsburgh, PA) authored the article “Demand for Remote Desktop Access and Cloud Computing Services Necessitates a Refined Approach for Civil Litigation E-Discovery,” appearing in Lawyers Journal, the publication of the Allegheny County Bar Association. In his article, Greg discusses data mapping as a solution for bypassing challenges that cloud computing and remote access services can create for e-discovery. Read the article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/demand-remote-desktop-access-and-cloud-computing-services-necessitates-refined-approach

Brad Haas’s (Pittsburgh) article “Managing Liability for Videoconferencing While Driving” was published on January 3, 2023, by Risk Management. You can read the article here: http://www.rmmagazine.com/articles/article/2023/01/03/managing-liability-for-videoconferencing-while-driving

Ronda O’Donnell (Philadelphia, PA) contributed an article to Pennsylvania Law Weekly. Titled, “Board Takes Aim at Employers’ Rules That Violate National Labor Relations Act.” The article discusses how employers must be mindful when developing, implementing, or enforcing rules or policies that might arguably restrict employees’ speech, particularly when it comes to discussions regarding the terms and conditions of employment and employees’ compensation and wages. Employers who fail to pay attention to these types of prohibitions might, reluctantly, find themselves among those targeted for action by the NLRB.

Michael Salvati’s (Philadelphia PA) article “A Two-Pronged Test Becomes One: Why the Superior Court’s Venue Decision in Hangey Departs from Decades of Prior Precedent” was published in The Pennsylvania Lawyer. You can read the article here: https://assets.marshalldennehey.com/content/uploads/2026/04/O-643-by-M.-Salvati-01-02.2023-The-PA-Lawyer.pdf

Robert Stanko and Andrew Goldstein (Philadelphia, PA) authored the article, “Increase in Crime Forces Local Businesses Into a Catch-22,” that was published in The Legal Intelligencer’s Personal Injury Supplement. You can read the article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/increase-crime-forces-local-businesses-catch-22

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 1, March 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

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

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.

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.