.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 4, September 2021

September 1, 2021

Appointments

Karen Grethlein (Philadelphia, PA) has been re-appointed for a three-year term as the Young Lawyer Delegate for Philadelphia in the Pennsylvania Bar Association House of Delegates.

Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) has been appointed co-chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Amicus Curiae Brief Committee. The position became effective May 21, 2021, and will terminate at the close of the 2022 PBA Annual Meeting. Josh has drafted or co-authored several amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the Pennsylvania Bar Association in his capacity as co-chair of its Professional Liability Committee.

Recognition

For the ninth year running, Marshall Dennehey was selected by the Philadelphia Business Journal as one of the Philadelphia region’s “Best Places to Work.” The award recognizes our achievements in creating a positive work environment that attracts and retains employees through a combination of benefits, working conditions and company culture. We have been recognized as a “Best Place to Work” every year since 2013, winning the extra large company category in 2017, 2019 and 2020. Hundreds of companies submitted nominations to the program, which ranks the top employers according to scores given to the companies by their own workers. Our Delaware Valley locations, including our Philadelphia headquarters and offices in King of Prussia and Mount Laurel, New Jersey, were included in the survey. “We are always pleased to learn that we have been selected, but this year might be the sweetest of all,” said Marshall Dennehey President and CEO, G. Mark Thompson. “Our employees rose to every challenge presented by the pandemic, and then some. We are so grateful for their hard work and dedication, and we will continue to do whatever we can to maintain and improve our working environment so that all of our employees are engaged and have the opportunity to succeed.”

The Philadelphia Chapter of the National Bar Association Women Lawyers Division (NBA/WLD) selected Butler “Buck” Buchanan (Philadelphia, PA) as the 2021 recipient of its annual Renaissance Man Award. The award recognizes an African American man who has demonstrated commitment to the empowerment, advancement and full participation of women of color in the legal profession. It additionally honors a legacy of professional excellence and commitment to the African American legal community, including support of the NBA/WLD. Buck “accepted” the award during the organization’s virtual Jazz in June Awards Ceremony and Cocktail Reception on June 17, 2021. Congratulations, Buck!

Elizabeth Ferguson (Jacksonville, FL) has been recognized in Florida Trend magazine’s 2021 Legal Elite list in the category of Construction law. Elizabeth was previously featured on the Legal Elite list in 2014, 2018 and 2020, as well as the Up & Comers list in 2008 and 2010-2013. Now in its 18th year, Florida Legal Elite presents the state’s top licensed and practicing attorneys selected by their peers. The resulting list represents less than 2% of the active Florida Bar members who practice in Florida. Elizabeth has been Board Certified in Construction Law by The Florida Bar since 2009, and she is a former board member of the Florida Board of Professional Engineers. She is a Construction Panel Arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association, has served as a professor of Construction Law, and is a frequent speaker on legal and construction industry issues. Additionally, she is a past president of the Jacksonville Bar Association.

Daniel McDermott and Edward Radzik (New York, NY) have once again been cited as “Notable Practitioners” in the 2021 edition of Chambers USA. Both attorneys were recognized in the Transportation: Shipping/Maritime: Litigation (New York), Nationwide Band 3 category. Dan was described by clients as, “His counsel is always sound and he approaches things in a practical manner.” Clients remarked of Ed: “He is a solid cargo attorney who is knowledgeable and a formidable opponent.” Congratulations to Dan and Ed!

2021 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

Seven attorneys from our Florida offices have been selected to the 2021 edition of Florida Super Lawyers magazine. A description of the selection methodology can be found at http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html. Our attorneys selected to the 2021 Florida Super Lawyers list include:

  • Michael J. Bradford, Civil Litigation Defense.
  • Michael J. DeCandio, Construction Litigation.
  • Elizabeth B. Ferguson, Construction Litigation.
  • Alan C. “A.C.” Nash, Civil Litigation Defense.

Our attorneys selected to the 2021 Florida Super Lawyers Rising Stars list include:

  • Julie Cunningham Aiello, Transportation & Maritime.
  • Amanda J. Podlucky, Personal Injury Defense.
  • Irene Thaler, Insurance Coverage.

2021 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Forty-five attorneys from our Pennsylvania offices have been selected to the 2021 edition of Pennsylvania Super Lawyers magazine. A description of the selection methodology can be found at http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html. Receiving special recognition for the 16th consecutive year is Dan Sherry (King of Prussia, PA), who has been named to the “Top 100 Attorneys in Pennsylvania” and the “Top 100 Attorneys in Philadelphia” Super Lawyer lists. For the fourth year in a row, John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) was named to the “Top 100 Attorneys in Pennsylvania” and the “Top 100 Attorneys in Philadelphia” Super Lawyer lists. Our 2021 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers include:

  • Harrisburg: Brooks Foland, John Ninosky, Edwin Schwartz
  • King of Prussia: Audrey Copeland, Kevin Fitzpatrick, Chandler Hosmer, Edward McGinn, Donna Modestine, Stephen Ryan, Daniel Sherry
  • Philadelphia: William Banton, Ralph Bocchino, Kimberly Boyer-Cohen, Buck Buchanan, Raphael Duran, Scott Gemberling, Tiffany Giangiulio, John Hare, Niki Ingram, Kate Kramer, Bruce McKissock, Michele Punturi, Bradley Remick, Daniel Ryan, Joseph Santarone, Vlada Tasich, Mark Thompson, Michael Turner, Thomas Wagner
  • Pittsburgh: Dennis Roman, Stuart Sostmann

Our 2021 Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Stars include:

  • Harrisburg: Brittany Bakshi
  • Philadelphia: Nicholas Bowers, Lee Durivage, Ashley Eldridge, Dana Gittleman, Andrew Goldstein, Kimberly House, Robert Stanko, Alesia Sulock, Daniel Tran
  • Pittsburgh: Jillian Corbett, Gregory Graham, Patrick Reilly
  • Scranton: Mark Kozlowski

Published Articles

Kimberly Berman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) was featured in Law.com’s “How I Made Partner” series. The article discusses her career trajectory from law school to now. Read the article: https://www.law.com/2021/05/04/how-i-made-partner-i-opened-the-door-to-partnership-by-becoming-an-appellate-specialist-says-kimberly-berman-of-marshall-dennehey/.

Josh J. T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) authored the article “How Are You Incorrectly Using Your IOLTA Account (Part II)?,” appearing in the May 18, 2021, issue of The Legal Intelligencer. Read the article here: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2021/05/18/how-are-you-incorrectly-using-your-iolta-account-part-ii/.

Heather LaBombardi and Nataliana Guida (Roseland, NJ) authored the article “Vicarious Liability—Do You Really Need an Affidavit of Merit?” for the New Jersey Law Journal. Read the article here: https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2021/05/06/vicarious-liability-do-you-really-need-an-affidavit-of-merit/.

Amanda Podlucky (Orlando, FL) authored the article “Incident Prevention and Response Hits Close to Home,” appearing in the May 19, 2021, issue of Multi-Housing News. Read the article here: https://www.multihousingnews.com/post/incident-prevention-and-response-hits-close-to-home/.

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) authored an article entitled “Strategy Is Key for Opening Statements and Closing Arguments,” which is featured in the NJSBA’s June 2021 edition of the New Jersey Lawyer Magazine. In this article, Jack and Jeremy address the importance of forming a sound litigation strategy in preparing opening statements and closing arguments and explain what can and cannot be said during openings and closings and discuss objections that could be made during the opening statements and closing arguments. Read this article at https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/strategy-key-opening-statements-and-closing-arguments.

Speaking Engagements

Mohamed Bakry (Philadelphia, PA), a member of the firm’s Diversity Committee, moderated a presentation at the 2021 DRI Diversity For Success seminar in New Orleans, Louisiana. In their session, “A Conversation About Racial Justice in America,” Mohamed and panelists explored the inequities related to racial justice and addressed ways to move the dialogue into action so that the cycle of injustice can be broken.

Butler Buchanan (Philadelphia, PA) joined a panel to discuss “Workplace Culture, Equity and Safety as Our Community Emerges From a Global Pandemic” at the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Virtual Spring Quarterly.

Peggy Bush (Orlando, FL), Leonard Leicht (Roseland, NJ) and Harold Moroknek (Westchester, NJ) presented the webinar “Rules of the Trucking Industry: Staying on Track!,” at the recent Transportation Lawyers Association (TLA) Annual Conference.

James Cole (Philadelphia, PA) participated in the Insurance Law Global and Lloyd’s Market Association Young Professionals Virtual Boot Camp. He co-presented “US/Canadian Litigation in a Post-COVID-19 World.”

Ashley Eldridge (Philadelphia, PA) was a speaker at the Dispute Resolution Institute’s Personal Injury Potpourri, presenting “COVID-19 and Workers’ Compensation.”

Michele Frisbie (King of Prussia, PA) presented “Personal Injury Exculpatory Clauses” on behalf of Stafford Publishing. This CLE webinar guided counsel in personal injury cases in interpreting, challenging or defending exculpatory clauses, the use of which invites a whole host of legal issues and public policy concerns. The program explored the difference between exculpation from liability arising out of a familiar activity with a well-defined set of risks with exculpation for injuries from novel and undefined risks. The program discussed how exculpatory clauses fare in real-world contexts—such as commercial leases, product liability, healthcare and sports.

Adam Fulginiti, Mary Kate McGrath (Philadelphia, PA) and Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented “Charting the Course of Telehealth in the Post-COVID Landscape” as part of the ASHRM Webinar Series. The session focused on the fundamental principles and best practices to help ensure that telemedicine systems work in tandem with AI-based insurance systems, comport with regulatory requirements and avoid the potential for malpractice.

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

Kevin Hexstall (Philadelphia, PA) was a featured speaker at the Perrin Conferences’ In-House Counsel Perspectives Symposium. Kevin’s session was titled, “Maintaining Relationships With Outside Counsel.”

Howard Mankoff (Roseland, NJ) was a featured speaker at the New Jersey State Bar Association Annual (virtual) Meeting. Howard participated on a panel that discussed “Successful Mediation of Employment Disputes: Common Pitfalls and Strategies to Dig Out!” The presentation focused on the widely differing mediation expectations and lack of preparation; particular challenges of multi-party cases; adversaries with at-odds negotiation styles; and how to get the most value from virtual mediations.

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) presented “Changing the Employee Safety and Wellness Mindset to Reduce Workers’ Compensation Costs and Avoid Liability” at CLM’s Workers’ Compensation and Retail, Restaurant & Hospitality Conference.

Eric Reichenberger (Fort Lauderdale, FL) was a co-presenter for “Not Fun & Games: Litigating Injury Claims Involving Minors” at the DRI Retail & Hospitality Virtual Seminar. Eric and panel discussed hospitality companies, and in particular theme park owners and operators, facing a disproportionate number of claims made on behalf of minors. Presenters also reviewed how in-house counsel and outside litigators can best adapt to defend those claims in court and in the public arena.

Our firm was well-represented at the latest Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s annual conference. Patrick Reilly (Pittsburgh, PA) co-presented “The New Marketing Tool—Creating a Podcast that People Want to Hear.” Robert Aldrich (Scranton, PA) participated in “Legal Marketing on LinkedIn—Learn How Law Firms are Leveraging LinkedIn’s Unique Data and Environment to Engage Clients and Prospects to Grow Their Business.” Finally, Charlene Seibert (Pittsburgh, PA) co-presented “Legal Malpractice Concerns in the New Remote World—Ethics Complaints, Legal Malpractice Actions, and Protecting Your Practice in the Post-COVID-19 –World.”

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 4, September 2021 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. © 2021 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

Result

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

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.

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. 

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

News

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

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

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

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.