.

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

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.

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

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.

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. 

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

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

News

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

Thought Leadership

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.