.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022

December 1, 2022

MARSHALL DENNEHEY COMBINES FORCES WITH LITIGATION BOUTIQUE, DELANY LAW

On October 31, 2022, the firm joined forces with the attorneys and staff of the Philadelphia-based litigation boutique Delany Law. Helmed by veteran trial attorney Jack Delany, the union brings three shareholders, one special counsel, one associate, two paralegals, and an experienced group of support staff to our Philadelphia and Mount Laurel, New Jersey, offices. All of the attorneys will practice in the firm’s Casualty Department.

“We are delighted to welcome the attorneys and staff of Delaney Law to the firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, our president & CEO. “Given our complimentary practices and the fact that our lawyers have long known, liked and respected one another, we felt uniting under the Marshall Dennehey umbrella would make us both better. The pairing affords Marshall Dennehey exceptional trial talent and greater bench strength in Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey, while providing the lawyers and clients of Delany Law the opportunity to capitalize on the resources and efficiencies that we can provide as one of the country’s largest defense litigation firms.”

Jack Delany, founding partner of Delany Law and a well-known defense trial attorney in the Philadelphia region, joins our Philadelphia office as a shareholder. Jack defends catastrophic, high-profile, high-exposure cases against some of the country’s most formidable plaintiff firms. He has taken more than 60 jury trials to conclusion, as well as hundreds of bench trials, arbitrations and mediations. He has represented many Fortune 500 companies directly and as insureds and has handled complex litigation matters at the federal and state levels, as well as in administrative agencies and alternate dispute resolution forums. Jack also serves as national coordinating counsel for several product manufacturers.

Andrew Campbell and Kristen Worley also join our Philadelphia office as shareholders. Andrew has more than 20 years of experience in civil litigation and insurance defense, with specific focus in the areas of construction, fire and product litigation. Kristen has two decades of litigation and trial experience, representing clients in Pennsylvania and New Jersey in matters involving product liability, personal injury and commercial auto litigation. Andy Ciganek will join the Philadelphia office as an associate. With a strong background in civil litigation, he has successfully handled personal injury, wrongful death, premises liability, aviation, maritime and class action lawsuits.

Lastly, Michael Logue joins us as special counsel in the Mount Laurel office. Mike is an accomplished personal injury trial attorney and has obtained successful outcomes in matters involving bodily injury, workers’ compensation and property damage claims.

Jack Delany commented on the merger. “After 33 great years of running my own firm, the time has come to join forces with a larger firm that can provide the same level of intelligent, innovative resources paired with the solid support that my clients and my employees deserve. That firm, our new home, is Marshall Dennehey, one of the finest legal defense firms in the business for decades. We are thrilled to join this truly amazing team. They have the integrity, the impeccable reputation and the progressive ideals that will move our practice into an exciting new phase of history.”

 

RECOGNITION

Six attorneys from our New York City, Westchester County and Long Island offices have been selected to the 2022 edition of New York Metro 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 a 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. 

2022 New York Metro Super Lawyers

  • Nicholas P. Chrysanthem, Professional Liability: Defense (NYC)
  • James P. Connors, Personal Injury General: Defense (Westchester)

2022 New York Metro Super Lawyer Rising Stars

  • Dean Aronin, Transportation/Maritime (NYC)
  • Adam C. Calvert, Personal Injury General: Defense (NYC)
  • Preston Holmes, Transportation/Maritime (Westchester County)
  • Robert Demeusy, Personal Injury – Products: Defense (Long Island)

 

SEMINARS

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

Kimberly Kanoff Berman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) 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 PLDF Annual Meeting in Chicago.

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) 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 (ADISA) trade conference in Las Vegas. The panel was titled “Hiring with Caution: How One Bad Apple Can Spoil Your Business.”

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

Jonathon Cross (Philadelphia, PA) co-presented “Concussion in Sport - Causation and Risk Management in the Spotlight” at a recent Insurance Law Global webinar.

Brooks Foland (Harrisburg, PA) co-moderated the webinar “In the Zoom: Ins and Outs of Remote Mediation” for the Dauphin County Bar Association.

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 event is the yearly training program for attorneys in the executive branch of state government with 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 the webinar “Employment Law Basics – The Basis of OSHA, FLSA, ADA & More” for the Society for Human Resource Risk Management (SHRM).

Mary Kate McGrath and Adam J. Fulginitti (Philadelphia, PA) made a telehealth presentation for PAHCM (Pennsylvania Association of Health Care Risk Management).

Harold Moroknek (Westchester, NY) co-presented at the Auto Haulers Association Fall Expo in Orlando. The seminar was titled “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” to the RIMS Broward County Chapter.

Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) and Robin Romano (Philadelphia, PA) were co-presenters at this 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 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, heard comments and critiques on current case law impacting the SIU and how it relates to the ethical investigation of insurance fraud moving forward.

Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) 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. Additionally, Jeremy was a panelist at the Rutgers’

School of Law’s Professionalism Seminar, which is offered twice a year, and Jeremy is a recurring panelist to discuss 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. 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 and applications of the Rules of Professional Conduct in practical examples.

 

OTHER NEWS

Four attorneys from our Wilmington, Delaware, office have been selected 2022 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today magazine. The recognized attorneys are Bradley J. Goewert and Thomas J. Marcoz, Jr. for medical malpractice defense; and Benjamin K. Durstein and Keri L. Morris-Johnston for workers’ compensation employer defense.

 

PUBLISHED ARTICLES

Josh Byrne’s (Philadelphia, PA) article, “What to Think About When Deciding on Legal Malpractice Insurance,” was published by PLUS Blog on September 12, 2022. You can read the article here: https://plusblog.org/2022/09/12/what-to-think-about-when-deciding-on-legal-malpractice-insurance/.

Josh Byrne’s (Philadelphia, PA) article “Practical Considerations for Those Facing Suspension or Disbarment” was published in The Legal Intelligencer on October 3, 2022. You can read the article here: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2022/10/03/practical-considerations-for-those-facing-suspension-or-disbarment/.

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) was quoted in The Legal Intelligencer article, “‘You Have to Battle When It Should Be a Walk in the Park’: Ethics Lawyers Say Attorney Discipline Has Gotten Tougher,” on September 1, 2022. You can read the article here: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2022/09/01/you-have-to-battle-when-it-should-be-a-walk-in-the-park-ethics-lawyers-say-attorney-discipline-has-gotten-tougher/.

Matthew Keris (Scranton, PA) was quoted in the third quarter issue of Medical Liability magazine’s cover story, which explores the implications of artificial intelligence for MPL carriers and health care providers. You can read the article here: https://www.mplassociation.org/Web/Publications/Inside_Medical_Liability/Issues/2022/Q3/articles/AI_Offers_Opportunities_and_Risks_for_Providers.aspx.

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

Alexander Possino’s (Pittsburgh, PA) article “Navigating Uncharted Territory: How to Avoid Danger Zones in the Evolving Landscape of Medicaid Liens” was published in the September 2022 edition of CLM Magazine. You can read the article here: https://736506f6.flowpaper.com/CLMSeptember2022/?utm_campaign=2210916_CLM%20Digital%20Edition%20Announcement%20922&utm_medium=email&utm_source=CLM&dm_i=37P3,1BDYC,2U2OSA,5514V,1#page=10.

Andrea Rock’s (Philadelphia, PA) article “When Filing a Petition Can Result in an Award of Attorney Fees” was published in The Legal Intelligencer on October 6, 2022. You can read the article here: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2022/10/06/when-filing-a-petition-can-result-in-an-award-of-attorney-fees/.

Charlene Seibert’s (Pittsburgh, PA) article “The ‘Jaundiced Eye’ and the Fight to Prevent Inherent Speculation in Legal Malpractice Cases” was published by The Legal Intelligencer on October 6, 2022. You can read the article here: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2022/10/06/the-jaundiced-eye-and-the-fight-to-prevent-inherent-speculation-in-legal-malpractice-cases/.

Robert Stanko’s and Andrew Goldstein’s (King of Prussia, PA) article “Increase in Crime Forces Local Businesses Into a Catch-22” was published in the October 29, 2022, issue of The Legal Intelligencer. You can read the article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/increase-crime-forces-local-businesses-catch-22.

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022, 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. © 2022 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

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

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. 

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

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.

Thought Leadership

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

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