.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 3, October 2022

October 1, 2022

APPOINTMENTS

Melanie Foreman (Philadelphia, PA) and her co-chair of the Leadership Council of Community Legal Services will spearhead CLS’s annual Bar Campaign. The Bar Campaign raises critical funds for CLS from Philadelphia law firms and businesses. Funds raised support the mission of CLS.

Harold Moroknek (Westchester, NY) has been selected to the Executive Committee of the Bus Industry Safety Council (BISC), a division of the American Bus Association. BISC is comprised of security, mechanical, safety, operational and maintenance leaders from across the North American motor coach industry. As an attorney member of the council, Harold advises on legal issues impacting the industry, including litigation strategies for defending, mitigating and avoiding transportation claims.

Charlene Seibert (Pittsburgh, PA) has been appointed to a three-year term as a Hearing Committee Member of District IV or the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Hearing Committee Members perform essential roles in Pennsylvania’s disciplinary system, chief among them to review Disciplinary Counsel’s recommended dispositions and to conduct hearings into formal charges of attorney misconduct and petitions for reinstatement. These efforts, which include reviewing pleadings and briefs, weighing evidence, and writing reports, are critical to guiding the Board and the Supreme Court in their determinations.

Stuart Sostmann (Pittsburgh, PA) was elected president of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute (PDI) at the organization’s recent annual conference.

RECOGNITION

Michael Bradford (Tampa, FL) and James Hanratty (Jacksonville, FL) have been selected to the 2022 Florida Trend Legal Elite. Both are recognized for excellence in the Civil Trial category. Honorees represent less than 2% of active Florida Bar members and include attorneys in private practice as well as top government and non-profit attorneys.

A.C. Nash (Fort Lauderdale, FL) received a “Best Mentors Award” from the Daily Business Review.

G. Mark Thompson (Philadelphia, PA) was named to 2022 City & State Pennsylvania’s Law Power 100. The list annually recognizes lawyers who exhibit excellence in the profession of law and are deemed to be some of the state’s most influential leaders.

SEMINARS

Mohamed Bakry (Philadelphia, PA) presented at the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel (FDCC) Winter Meeting. His topic was “Two Years Into a Pandemic – What Your Jurors May Be Thinking.” Mohamed was also a panelist at the FDCC Annual Meeting, where he discussed the topic “Anatomy of a Trial: Opening Statement and Closing Argument.” The panel reviewed how to use an opening statement and closing argument to establish why fairness and justice require a favorable verdict for your client. Finally, Mohamed spoke on behalf of the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) on “Becoming an Active Ally with a Focus on Allyship With Our Muslim Colleagues: How to Get Involved, Stay Involved, and Educate Others About Racial and Social Injustice.”

Kimberly Kanoff Berman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) participated in an episode of Summarily: A Podcast for Busy Lawyers. In “UNprecedented,” Kim and Adam Richardson of Burlington Rockenbach discussed how Florida state courts and lawyers are treating precedent.

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) presented at the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s annual Spring 2022 Avoiding Legal Malpractice Program. “Avoiding Legal Malpractice” was presented by the PBA Professional Liability Committee and featured information on a variety of issues that have been identified as common areas where attorneys can be exposed to liability or malpractice claims and focuses on steps we can all take to avoid, or at least mitigate, potential claims. Josh also co-presented the webinar “Dealing with Difficult Opposing Counsel 2022” for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. Co-presented with members of the Bar and the judiciary, this session offered tools, techniques and insight into practical and effective methods of dealing with difficult opposing counsel, while complying with the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Jim Cole (Philadelphia, PA) recently gave two presentations on insurance fraud. He co-presented “Appraisal: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” at the 2022 Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Conference in Hershey, PA. Jim also presented, “Fraud Claims: The Real Housewives Edition,” at the 2022 PLRB Claims Conference & Insurance Services Expo in San Antonio, TX.

Benjamin Durstein (Wilmington, DE) presented “The Do’s and Don’ts of Workers’ Compensation Practice” on behalf of the Delaware State Bar Association.

Linda Farrell (Jacksonville, FL) presented “You Had Me at…Avoiding Fee Exposure” at the Association of Workers’ Compensation Claims Professional’s 30th Annual Claims Management and Leadership Conference.

Elizabeth Ferguson (Jacksonville, FL) chaired The Florida Bar’s Construction Law Review Course.

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) presented Civil Litigation Update 2022 on behalf of the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. John also attended the Commemoration of the 300th Anniversary of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. John was part of a distinguished faculty of scholars, attorneys and jurists at this symposium, which included the Honorable Anthony M. Kennedy, Retired Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Matthew Keris (Scranton, PA) has been traveling the county giving presentations on RaDonda Vaught criminal verdict and artificial intelligence in health care. Here is a sample of his recent presentations:

American Legal Connections - “Liability Issues With Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare Litigation”

American Society for Healthcare Risk Management - “Best Practices for Balancing Transparency While Avoiding Liability Following the RaDonda Vaught Criminal Verdict”

CHART Institute’s virtual conference - “A New Frontier: Maintaining Transparency and Defenses Following the RaDonda Vaught Criminal Verdict”

Duke University’s School of Nursing - “RaDonda Vaught—What Happened and What Can We Learn From Her Trial”

Medical Professional Liability Association - “Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Revolutionary or Risky?”

New England Regional Healthcare Risk Management Conference (NERHRMC) - “The New Reality--Managing the EMR and Audit Trail”

Ohio Hospital Association Annual Meeting - “Risks and Legal Aspects of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care”

Thomson Reuters’ Virtual Conference - “Litigation Risks Associated with AI in Healthcare”

Washington Healthcare Risk Management Society Annual Meeting in Seattle, WA - “New Risks With the Application of Artificial Intelligence to Medicine”

West Virginia ASHRM Chapter - “A Hard Task: Balancing Transparency While Avoiding Liability Following the RaDonda Vaught Criminal Verdict”

Mark Kozlowski (Scranton, PA) presented “Pay & Benefits – Overtime, Minimum Wage, Compensable Time, Legally Required Benefits” before the members of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).

Paul Krepps (Pittsburgh, PA) was a featured speaker at the Allegheny County Bar Association CLE program, “Law Against Violence.” Paul and a panel of lawmakers, practitioners, academics, and the judiciary covered the current state of the domestic violence prevention system and the pros and cons of adopting Alina’s Law, which would increase electronic monitoring of both parties to domestic violence in an effort to provide protection to the victim. Paul presented, “Impact of Protection from Abuse Orders: A Case Study,” that described the homicide of a victim of domestic violence, observations on the legal system and improvements that were enacted post-investigation. Paul also was a co-presenter at the annual Pennsylvania Defense Institute Conference on the topic of Qualified Immunity.

Mary Kate McGrath and Adam Fulginiti (Philadelphia, PA) presented “Taking the Telemedicine Time-Out,” an educational webinar for the Philadelphia Area Society of Healthcare Risk Management (PASHRM). They discussed the importance of taking “time-outs” to ensure that telemedicine systems comport with regulatory requirements, enhance the quality of patient care, and reduce the potential for malpractice.

Harold Moroknek (Westchester, NY) made a presentation at the Omaha Nebraska CLM Chapter event titled “Where Are You Leaking.” This presentation was a look at controlling costs and reducing claims through minimizing errors and omissions. Additionally, Harold presented for a client on “Assault Analysis” discussing the rise of claim numbers and values nationally in physical and sexual assault cases. Harold also spent time in Atlanta at the Auto Haulers Association of America (AHAA) Spring 2022 meeting. He partnered with Carrie Wall of the Bill Fralic Insurance Group to present “Where Are You Leaking? Pain Points and Missteps: Things That Cost a Motor Carrier Unnecessary Defense and Indemnity Dollars.”

Michael Packer (Fort Lauderdale, FL) presented at the Florida Defense Lawyers Association’s Florida Liability Claims Conference. His seminar, “Investigating a Claim Under a Reservation of Rights,” explored strategies for managing claims that may not be covered and continuing the investigation once a Reservation of Rights has been issued.

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) presented “The Dawning of the Age of Remote Work” at CLM’s Workers’ Comp and Retail, Restaurant & Hospitality Conference.

Jeff Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented twice at the New England Chapter of IASIU’s annual conference, where he presented “Fraud in Telemedicine” and “Litigation Trends in SIU.” Jeff also gave a presentation to the Illinois Chapter of IASIU entitled “PI’s in the Field – Pre, During & Post COVID & New Manned/Unmanned Surveillance.” Jeff also attended the annual CLM Conference and presented “The CAT’s Out of the Bag: Insurance Fraud in Catastrophic Losses.” Jeff participated remotely in the ILG Annual Conference held in London, when he presented “Financial Institutions (White Collar Crime/Fraud).” Finally, Jeff was recently in Malmo, Sweden, at the International Association of Special Investigation Units European Seminar & Expo where he co-presented “Major Case Preparation.”

Martin Schwartzberg (Long Island, NY) recently made a presentation titled “Ethics for Engineers” to the Long Island Chapter of American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC).

Dave Shannon (Philadelphia, PA) co-presented at the ILG annual conference and the USLI Cyber Security Conference. On behalf of ILG, Dave participated as a speaker in the program “Cyber (Ransomware).” Dave also gave a seminar entitled “How to Protect Yourself from Hackers, Rogue Employees and Cyber Crime” for USLI at their annual Cyber Security Conference.

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented a webinar entitled “Virtual Trials in New Jersey: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” This was presented to an audience comprised of claims professionals, attorneys and various insurance companies. Jack and Jeremy explained their experience with trying cases in a virtual and hybrid setting, and gave practical pointers and strategies in trying a case, picking a jury, and presenting evidence in a virtual format. Jack and Jeremy introduced the firm’s capabilities from a technological standpoint and described the staffing that is needed for trying a virtual or a hybrid case.

Robert Stanko (Philadelphia, PA) recently presented a webinar for the members of the Dallas Claims Association (DCA) on the topic “Successful Strategies for Effective Mediation.”

OTHER NEWS

Gaylene Coover, office manager of our Jacksonville office, was recently sworn in as a member of the Board of Directors of the Association of Legal Administrators Jacksonville Chapter.

Congratulations to our very own Stephanie Ransom, assistant office manager of our New York City and Roseland, NJ offices, upon her selection to the Association of Legal Administrators (ALA) Certification Committee. This is a national position and follows Stephanie’s tenure as a Vice President on the ALA’s NYC Chapter Board of Directors.

Jeff Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) was recently interviewed at a recent International Association of Special Investigation Units (IASIU) conference. In this video, he explains how carriers can avoid bad faith by making sure staff gets real training by getting interactive and personal attention. This will ensure people make right and informed decisions. If carriers are prepared and encourage staff to know they have their backs and will indemnify them, people will embrace the challenge of starting a career in insurance. They will not be afraid to do the right things when fighting fraud.

An interview with Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) was published by PLUS (Professional Liability Underwriting Society). Jeremy discusses his involvement in PLUS and his career in the liability insurance industry. Interview Link: RPLU Designee Testimonials (plusweb.org).

Published Articles

Josh Byrne’s (Philadelphia, PA) article “Sometimes You Have to Fire Your Client to Avoid Issues” was published in the March 18, 2022, edition of The Legal Intelligencer. You can read the article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/sometimes-you-have-fire-your-client-avoid-issues. Josh also authored the article “Legal Malpractice: Taking a Mistake and Making It a Fiasco,” appearing in the May 18, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer. Click here to read the article: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2022/05/17/legal-malpractice-taking-a-mistake-and-making-it-a-fiasco/. Finally, Josh’s article “Mental Health, Malpractice Avoidance and Ethical Conduct” was published in the July edition of The Legal Intelligencer. You can read the article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/mental-health-malpractice-avoidance-and-ethical-conduct

Samuel Cohen and Ryan Friels’ (Philadelphia, PA) article “FINRA, the SEC and Congress Aim to Safeguard Senior Investors” was published in the May 12, 2022 issue of The Legal Intelligencer. Click here to read the article: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/finra-sec-and-congress-aim-safeguard-senior-investors.

Dana Gittleman’s (Philadelphia, PA) recent article “The Importance of Memorializing Insurance Discussions” was posted on PLUS blog. You can read her article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/importance-memorializing-insurance-discussions

Brad Haas’s (Pittsburgh, PA) article “Superior Court Reviews Discoverability of Mental Health Records” was published in the April 7, 2022, issue of Lawyers Journal. You can read the article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/superior-court-reviews-discoverability-mental-health-records

Matthew Keris’s (Scranton, PA) article, “The Evolution of the EMR: The Integration of AI in Medicine,” was published in the March 28, 2022, edition of The Legal Intelligencer. You can read the article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/evolution-emr-integration-ai-medicine

Jeff Rapattoni and Michael Sweeneys’ (Mount Laurel, NJ) article “Beyond Bad Faith: Expanding Bad Faith Damages Fraud-Fighting,” was recently published in the Journal of Insurance Fraud in America for The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud. The article, published March 3, 2022, can be seen at https://insurancefraud.org/publications/jifa-beyond-bad-faith/

Steven Saal’s (Westchester, NY) article “New York State Finalizes Changes to Insurance Disclosure Law” appeared in the May 20, 2022, edition of New York Law Journal. Click here to read this article: https://assets.marshalldennehey.com/content/uploads/2026/04/O-630-by-S.-Saal-05.20.2022-NY-Law-Journal.pdf

Robert Stanko (Philadelphia, PA) authored the article “Commentary: Consequences of SCOTUS Leak Could Be Significant,” appearing in the May 6, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer. You may read the article here: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2022/05/06/commentary-consequences-of-scotus-leak-could-be-significant/.

Alesia Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) authored the article “The Attorney-Client Relationship: Keeping the Lines of Communication Open,” appearing on the PLUS Blog. Click here to read: https://plusblog.org/2022/05/09/the-attorney-client-relationship-keeping-the-lines-of-communication-open/.

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 3, October 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

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

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

News

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

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Thought Leadership

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

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

Thought Leadership

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

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

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

News

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

Thought Leadership

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

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

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

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