.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 1, April 2022

April 1, 2022

2022 New Shareholder Class

We are happy to announce that 16 attorneys, 9 women and 7 men, have been elevated to shareholder effective January 1, 2022. The class of new shareholders includes one of the highest percentages—59 percent—of women in the firm’s 60-year history. These new shareholders represent the firm’s four core departments—casualty, professional liability, health care and workers’ compensation—and come from 10 of the firm’s 19 regional offices.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
•    Dana A. Gittleman, Professional Liability Department. 
•    Todd J. Leon, Professional Liability Department. 
•    Alesia S. Sulock, Professional Liability Department. 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
•    Ryan M. Krescanko, Casualty Department. 
•    Erin N. Margolin, Casualty Department. 
•    Darren M. Newberry, Casualty Department. 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 
•    Karen ‘Missy’ E. Minehan, Health Care Department. 

Wilmington, Delaware
•    Lisa M. Grubb, Casualty Department. 

Roseland, New Jersey 
•    Debra M. Marcus, Health Care Department. 

Mount Laurel, New Jersey
•    Adam E. Levy, Professional Liability Department. 

Melville, New York 
•    Jennifer M. Roberts, Casualty Department. 
•    Sam V. Ruggeri, Casualty Department. 

Purchase, New York 
•    Jennifer M. Meyers, Casualty Department.
•    Steven B. Saal, Casualty Department. 

Cleveland, Ohio
•    Andrew H. Isakoff, Casualty Department. 

Jacksonville, Florida
•    Corey K. Setterlund, Professional Liability Department.
 

Recognition

Marshall Dennehey received the 2021 Champion of the Bar Award from the Philadelphia Bar Association at the Association’s annual member appreciation event. Created in 2020, the Champion of the Bar Award is given annually to a law firm, law department, legal services organization, or law school in Philadelphia that has fully supported the Association through 100% membership, leadership roles, member engagement and contribution to the community through public service.

Colleen Bannon (Philadelphia, PA) was selected among the Top 100 Women Leaders in Law 2021 by the Women We Admire organization. From secretary, to administrative assistant, to IT specialist, to attorney, to Director of Litigation Support, to Director of HR, to Chief Operating Officer—Colleen’s 41-year career with our firm is an inspiration to all women that the sky’s the limit when you have grit and determination and put in the hard work. 

Joan Orsini Ford (King of Prussia, PA) received the 2021 James P. Fox Trial Lawyer of the Year Award from the Montgomery Bar Association Trial Lawyers Section. The award recognizes not only proficiency in the courtroom, but also a dedication to promoting a positive image for attorneys through one’s professional demeanor, service and integrity. In addition, it seeks to acknowledge an attorney who has created a reputation among her peers as a daunting adversary, while remaining a respected colleague. 

Lauren Gandle (Tampa, FL) has been selected as a member of the Hillsborough Association for Women Lawyers Leadership Academy Class of 2021-2022. The Leadership Academy is a multi-session professional development program designed for attorneys seeking to advance their self-advocacy skills, leverage their talent in their legal position, identify leadership strategies and opportunities, create a plan for personal and professional leadership, and network with like-minded leaders. 

Daniel McDermott (Purchase, NY) received the Distinguished Service Award from the American Institute of Marine Underwriters (AIMU). The award is given annually in recognition of outstanding service not only to the AIMU organization, but also to the larger marine insurance community. 

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) has been approved for nomination by The Board of Governors of the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers as a Fellow of the College. Election as a Fellow represents the recognition by colleagues that Michele has distinguished herself as an outstanding professional who has made a sustained contribution to the field of workers’ compensation and met the College’s standards of integrity, professionalism and character. 

Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) has been awarded the PLUS Emerging Leader Award from the Professional Liability Underwriting Society. The annual award recognizes young professionals who exhibit the attributes to become future leaders in their organization and industry. Congratulations, Jeremy!
 

Appointments

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) has been named as Co-Chair of the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Professional Responsibility Committee.

Niki Ingram (Philadelphia, PA) was named Vice President of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation. Niki also serves as the Foundation’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Officer. 

Alan C. (A.C.) Nash (Fort Lauderdale, FL) has been appointed to the Board of Directors of the Broward County Chapter of RIMS, the Risk and Insurance Management Society. The RIMS Broward County Chapter strives to promote risk management professionals and elevate the risk management industry through education, community involvement, legislative participation, and networking opportunities. RIMS, a global not-for-profit, is the preeminent organization dedicated to advancing the practice of risk management throughout the world.

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) has also been selected as a “Risk Insider” contributor to Risk & Insurance magazine. In this capacity, Michele will author two articles per year for publication in the prominent insurance trade magazine. Click here to read Michele’s first article, “Workers’ Compensation Claims Mounting? A Collaborative Review Process Can Help.”
 

Published Articles

Tom Brown (Orlando, FL) and Patrick Delong (Fort Lauderdale, FL) authored the article, “Defending Ride-Hailing and Car-Sharing Claims – Handling Accident-Related Lawsuits in a Sharing Economy,” published in the January 2022 issue of CLM Magazine. Click here to read: https://736506f6.flowpaper.com/CLMJanuary2022/#page=10. 

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) had two articles published in November. “Employing a Formerly Admitted Attorney” was published by PLUS Blog on November 1, 2021, and can be read at https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/employing-formerly-admitted-attorney. “Remorse and Acceptance, Lessons From the Disbarments and Suspensions of 2021, published in The Legal Intelligencer on November 19th, can be read at https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/remorse-and-acceptance-lessons-disbarments-and-suspensions-2021.

Michael Duffy (King of Prussia, PA) authored the article “Bullying in the Workplace,” which appeared in the December issue of CLM Magazine. Click here to read the full article: https://theclm.org/Magazine/articles/bullying-in-the-workplace/2354?utm_campaign=2062679_CLM%20Mag%20Weekly%2012162021&utm_medium=email&utm_source=CLM&dm_i=37P3,187KN,2WOOPI,4RJZO,1

Allison Krupp and Christopher Woodward (Harrisburg, PA) authored, “Pa. Ruling Leaves Auto Policy Stacking Questions,” for Law360.com. Click here to read: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/pa-ruling-leaves-auto-policy-stacking-questions

Carolin Pacheco’s (Orlando, FL) article “‘Dodge v. People’s Trust Insurance’ and Its Effect on Coverage of Cast Iron Pipes Claims,” was published in the November 1, 2021, edition of the Daily Business Review. Click to read the article: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/%E2%80%98dodge-v-people%E2%80%99s-trust-insurance%E2%80%99-and-its-effect-coverage-cast-iron-pipes-claims

Michael Salvati (Philadelphia, PA) authored the article, “After ‘Tincher,’ Evidence of Industry Standards Should be Admissible in PI Litigation,” appearing in The Legal Intelligencer’s Personal Injury Supplement. You can read the article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/after-%E2%80%98tincher%E2%80%99-evidence-industry-standards-should-be-admissible-pi-litigation

Michael Sweeney’s (Mount Laurel, NJ) article “Mandatory Policy Limit Disclosure: How Pre-suit Negotiations in NJ Are Set to Change,” was published in September in the New Jersey Law Journal. Read the article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/mandatory-policy-limit-disclosure-how-pre-suit-negotiations-nj-are-set-change. 

Jeremy Zacharias’s (Mount Laurel, NJ) article “Incorporating DEI Into an Evolving Litigation Practice,” was published in The Legal Intelligencer on November 16th. Read his commentary here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/incorporating-dei-evolving-litigation-practice
 

Speaking Engagements

Linda Farrell (Jacksonville, FL) presented “Permanent and Total Disability” for the Association of Workers’ Compensation Claims Professionals.

Brooks Foland (Harrisburg, PA) presented “Joint and Several Liability in 2022” to the Pennsylvania Bar Institute.

Scott Gemberling (Philadelphia, PA) presented “Dram Shop, The Toxicology and the Law” to the National Academy of Continuing Legal Education.

Jessica Julian (Wilmington, DE) presented at the January Workers’ Compensation Breakfast Seminar, hosted by the Delaware State Bar Association. Jessica was part of a panel that discussed “Protocols Post Web-Ex.”

Matthew Keris (Scranton, PA) co-presented an educational session, “Anticipated Liability Risks of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare,” during the ASHRM Annual Conference held in San Antonio.

Mark Kozlowski (Scranton, PA) presented the webinar “Where to Find Talent & the Do’s/Don’t’s of Interviewing” to the Society for Human Resource Management.

Daniel Krebbs (Philadelphia, PA) participated in the 2021 Dispute Resolution Institute’s Personal Injury Practicum and gave an update on the uninsured/underinsured motorists in Pennsylvania.

Morgan Randle and Teresa Sirianni (Pittsburgh, PA) presented “Employment Claims Involving Law Enforcement: Prepare to Defend” before the Western Pennsylvania Chiefs’ of Police Association. The program highlighted the risks of discrimination and employment-based lawsuits that can arise in law enforcement, along with recommendations and best practices to protect chiefs and ranking officers. Topics included an employment law primer, two interactive and real case studies, information about individual liability and what to do if you are personally named, and hot topics.

Patrick Reilly and Lauren Purcell (Pittsburgh, PA) met with representatives from the Rutgers School of Law Appellate Advocacy Program to discuss liquor law in Pennsylvania. Their discussion was based on a 2020 article they wrote for The Legal Intelligencer’s Liquor Law Supplement titled, “Should Mandatory Liquor Liability Insurance Be in Pa.’s Future?”

Bradley Remick (Philadelphia, PA) presented “Trials in the Pandemic World” at the Door & Access Systems Manufacturers Association Annual Conference.

Courtney Schulnick (Philadelphia, PA) presented “Returning to Normal: Handling Stress Like a PRO” at the recent DRI Professional Liability Seminar.

David Shannon (Philadelphia, PA) moderated the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel program, “Cybersecurity: Crucial for a Law Firm’s Survival.” The panel discussed ways to protect ESI and the importance of conducting information security assessments, and how to manage budgeting issues and remote work vulnerabilities.

Robin Snyder (King of Prussia) was a panelist for a roundtable webinar hosted by the Pennsylvania Bar Association. Sponsored by the Large Law Firm Committee, the webinar, “Business and Practice of Law Post-COVID-19: How Will It Change?,” brought together legal leaders for a conversation focused on how law firms are adapting to conducting business post-COVID. Topics included attracting and retaining talent; onboarding and mentoring; balancing hybrid work environments; and building and maintaining client relationships.

Lary Zucker and Sara Mazzola (Mount Laurel, NJ) participated in the the annual “IAAPA/IALDA Legal Roundtable” at the IAAPA EXPO in Orlando, Florida.

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 1, April 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 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 Warner Coleman & Goggin. 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

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

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. 

Thought Leadership

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

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

Thought Leadership

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

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

Thought Leadership

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

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

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

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

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

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