.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 3, September 2025

September 1, 2025

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

Dana Gittleman (Philadelphia, PA), chair of our Real Estate E&O Practice Group, and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) kicked off their Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS) podcast series with “Insurance Agent E&O – Top Ten Tips for Risk Management.” From memorializing communications to protecting attorney-client privilege, Dana and Jeremy share practical strategies to help insurance professionals manage risk more effectively. Tune in! https://lnkd.in/eQGs3u2y

David Shannon (Philadelphia, PA), chair of our Privacy and Data Security Practice Group, and guest Evgueni Erchov from Cypfer, recorded the Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS) podcast “Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2025.” This is the third season of David’s ongoing podcast with PLUS. The program focused on ransomware, business-email compromise, AI, and the increasing sophistication of cyber-threat actors. Tune in today! https://plusweb.org/podcast/managing-cybersecurity-threats-in-2025-episode-1/. 

 

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

Kimberly Berman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) spoke at the 28th Annual Florida Defense Lawyers Association (FLDA) Liability Claims Conference about “Pleading, Proof, and Preservation of Punitive Damages Claims: Tips for Florida Trial Lawyers and Appellate Attorneys.”

Ryan Burns, Angie Colorado, and A.C. Nash (all in Fort Lauderdale, FL) presented “Relevant Procedural Rule Changes for Risk Managers” at the Tampa Bay RIMS (Risk & Insurance Management Society) educational luncheon. This program provided an insightful overview of the procedural changes in the Florida circuit court system. The discussion shed light on the impact of the Florida tort reform of 2023, aligning the state’s court procedures with those of the Federal court. These changes are set to influence the way lawsuits are handled, introducing strict timelines throughout the process.

Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) was a panelist at the Philadelphia Bar Associations’ webcast, “Ethics and Legal Malpractice Avoidance.” Josh is Co-Chair of the Bar’s Professional Responsibility and Guidance Committee. Josh also co-presented “Ethics Hotline and Special Ethical Considerations for Prosecutors,” at District Attorney’s Office: August CLE Program hosted by the Philadelphia Bar Association.

James Cole and Alec DelConte (both of Philadelphia, PA) presented “Untying Tangled Titles: How Property Deed Fraud Drives Costs and Indemnity,” at the annual conference of the International Association of Special Investigation Units. 

Christopher Conrad (Harrisburg, PA) and Lee Durivage (Philadelphia, PA) presented “Hot Topics in Employment Law,” for the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Law Firm Administrators’ Conference of Central Pennsylvania. Their presentation, which was attended by law firm administrators, human resources staff, and managing attorneys, focused on the current employment law issues facing law firms and practical advice for managing risk.

Michael Duffy (King of Prussia, PA) presented as part of the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s and Pennsylvania Bar Association Workers’ Compensation Law Section’s conference Tough Problems in Workers’ Compensation 2025. Mike was part of a panel that presented “Surveillance and Using Social Media to Win Your Case.” Designed specifically by and for the experienced workers’ compensation practitioner, this presentation highlighted select challenges in workers’ compensation practice and offered techniques for managing them. Developments, practices, strategies, and preferences were discussed to help avoid making mistakes that could negatively affect a client’s claim.

Christina Gonzales (Philadelphia, PA) served as moderator for a panel at the 2025 Defense Research Institute’s Diversity for Success Expo, titled “Building Your Book of Business with Brand YOU! (Pitching Business and Executive Branding).” The discussion explored how developing a personal brand and growing a book of business are essential strategies for standing out—both within your organization and across the legal profession. Panelists shared practical insights on how to balance client development with professional responsibilities, offering guidance on how legal professionals can define their value, build meaningful relationships, and pursue long-term success—whether in a law firm, in-house role, or independent practice.

Gregory Graham (Pittsburgh, PA) presented “AI Litigation: The Current Landscape,” at the Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s annual CLE and Conference. This seminar focused on the current landscape of liability claims stemming from the use of generative and agentic AI. While generative AI is more commonly discussed at this point in time, it is agentic AI—particularly its end-to-end automated goal identification and action initiation—that is going to profoundly impact our clients’ industries.

Sean Greenwalt and Amara Rodriguez (both of Tampa, FL) spoke at the 28th Annual Florida Defense Lawyers (FDLA) Association Liability Claims Conference about effective use of proposals for settlement in Florida’s new legal landscape.

Matthew Keris (Scranton, PA) presented “MPL Crossfire: How to Prepare for AI From a Medico-Legal Perspective,” at the 2024 Medical Professional Liability Association conference. Matt also presented two seminars at the Hospital Insurance Forum 2025 Conference. For the first seminar, Matt co-presented with Jill Huntley Taylor. Their presentation discussed “New Jury Considerations in the Age of Big Law, Verdicts, and Medicine.” One day later, Matt presented “AI in Healthcare: Views from a Clinical and Legal Perspective.” Finally, Matt joined a panel presentation for a webinar put on by the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform. The program, “Medical Malpractice Pennsylvania Update,” explored a number of emerging issues in medical malpractice, including the continuing surge of Philadelphia cases; dilution of plaintiffs’ burden to prove that an agent causes harm; preservation of issues on appeal and waiver rulings of Superior Court; ethical concerns of double and triple booking; and the rise of punitive damages. 

Paul Krepps (Pittsburgh, PA) spoke at the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association Conference and Training Session on “Litigation After-Action – Lessons from the Perspective of a Defense Lawyer.” 

Missy Minehan (Harrisburg, PA) presented “Mitigating and Responding to a Professional Liability Claim: Documentation, Discovery, and Depositions” during the Skilled Nursing Development Institute’s administrator appreciation event. Missy discussed pre-suit documentation issues, including documentation of arbitration agreements, missing medical records documentation and maintenance of key paper records (e.g. staffing, deployment, statements), and intra-lawsuit discovery and depositions.

Megan Nelson (Orlando, FL) presented “The Latest on Medical AI and Liability Claims,” at the Florida Society for Healthcare Risk Management and Patient Safety’s annual meeting and education conference.

Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented “Ethics and the Investigator,” at the conference of the Illinois Chapter of IASIU (International Association of Special Investigation Units Inc.). Jeff also spoke at the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud’s Mid-Year Meeting, participating in the panel “Insurance Fraud Through a Legal Lens: Insights from the Frontlines.” At the annual conference of the International Association of Special Investigation Units, Jeff made two presentations, “Legal Update: Emerging Legal Issues in Fraud Fighting,” and “Ethics.”

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) presented at the Camden County Bar Association Annual Civil Practice Update. Jack covered recent case law updates within New Jersey, and Jeremy moderated the panel discussion, which was also presented by the Honorable Steven J. Polansky, as well as several private practitioners. This annual seminar is well attended and has been a staple within the Camden County Bar Association for over two decades.

Jack Slimm was also a featured speaker at the annual New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education seminar “Legal Malpractice Update.” Jack and Appellate Judge, Harry Carroll, presented “Rule 104 Hearings Regarding Experts In Legal Malpractice Actions.”

Jeremy Zacharias also presented at an all-day CLE for the New Jersey State Bar Association on “Solving Problems in Commercial Real Estate Transactions.” Jeremy’s topic included a discussion on ethical considerations in commercial real estate transactions. Jeremy covered topics including pitfalls using artificial intelligence with commercial real estate transactions, as well as the applicability of the Rules of Professional Conduct in representing clients. 

PUBLISHED WORKS

August 18, 2025 – Todd Leon and Alec DelConte (both of Philadelphia, PA) published an article in The Legal Intelligencer’s Insurance Law Supplement. Titled, “Choice of Law in Coverage Disputes: What Happens When the Policy, the Loss and the Parties Span State Lines?,” the article explores how “choice of law” issues arise in litigation, using a Pennsylvania–New Jersey insurance dispute scenario to highlight the significant impact differing state laws can have on insurers and policyholders. Read their article here.

August 1, 2025 – Alana Staniszewski’s (Pittsburgh, PA) article “Pa. Supreme Court Permits Payment of Specific Loss Benefits to a Deceased Injured Workers’ Estate,” was published in The Legal Intelligencer. Read her article here.

July 28, 2025 – PLUS Blog published “Navigating the Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations: A Liability Risk for Insurance Agents,” by Dana Gittleman (Philadelphia, PA). Read her article here.

July 21, 2025 – The Legal Intelligencer published Alesia Sulock and Josh J.T. Byrne’s (both of Philadelphia, PA) article “Socially Responsible Lawyers: Why You Need to Understand Social Media to Competently Represent Your Clients, Part 2.” You can read this article here.

July 11, 2025 – William Murphy (Roseland, NJ) authored the article “Medical Marijuana in New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Law,” appearing in the New Jersey Law Journal’s Cannabis Supplement. The article discusses developments since the 2021 Hager decision (Vincent Hager v. M&K Construction, 246 N.J. 1 (2021), and recent shifts in the legal landscape as state and federal laws have evolved with regard to medical marijuana. You can read the article here. 

June 20, 2025 – Mark Wellman (New York, NY) was published in CLM Construction Claims Magazine – Summer Edition as a co-author of the article “Danger: Construction Site. Avoiding Liability & Workers’ Compensation Exposure in the Construction Industry.” The article explores key strategies for mitigating risk and managing claims in the high-stakes world of construction. You can read this article here.

June 17, 2025 – Jacob Gilboy’s (Harrisburg, PA) article “Employment Discrimination and Retaliation – Best Practices to Avoid Headaches,” was published in PLUS Blog. Employment discrimination and retaliation claims can disrupt even the most well-run organizations. In this article, Jake shares five practical tips for navigating these situations without making them worse! Read it now on the Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS) blog. 

June 10, 2025 – Ryan Friel (Philadelphia, PA) authored the article, “Proposed FINRA Rule 3290—A Regulatory Breakthrough or a Halfhearted Attempt at Real Reform?,” appearing in The Legal Intelligencer. The article questions if the proposed rule is truly a modernization of outdated regulations or merely a cosmetic update that fails to address the core concerns of broker-dealers and their registered representatives. Read here.

May 19, 2025 – Josh J.T. Byrne and Alesia Sulock (both of Philadelphia, PA) authored “The Barrier to Legal Malpractice Cases Arising Out of Class Action Settlements,” published in The Legal Intelligencer. Josh and Alesia explore a recent Delaware Supreme Court decision which examines why it is appropriate to have high barriers to legal malpractice actions after a class action settlement. You can read their article here.

May 2025 – Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) co-authored, with clients, the article “Danger: High Risk Ahead – Managing Workers’ Comp Exposure in Risky Industries,” appearing in CLM Magazine. The article discusses best workers’ compensation claims management practices for high-risk sectors including construction, health care, transportation, and retail and hospitality. You can read the article here. 

 

RECOGNITION

Jason Banonis (King of Prussia, PA) has been elected to the Board of Governors of the Bowie State University Maguire Academy for Risk Management and Insurance. He will also serve on its Education, Curriculum, and Program Committee. The Academy is affiliated with the Saint Joseph’s University Maguire Academy of Insurance & Risk Management, which was created by Saint Joseph’s alumnus James J. Maguire, founder and longtime CEO of the Philadelphia Insurance Company. Its purpose is to promote and support education in insurance, risk management, and actuarial science and offers services to its students, including scholarships, internships and co-op experiences, counseling, and assistance with career placement. Current academy board members include executives from global insurance companies and corporate risk managers.

James Hanratty (Jacksonville, FL) and Alesia Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) have been admitted to membership of the International Association of Defense Counsel. The IADC is an invitation-only, peer-reviewed association that has served a prestigious membership of corporate insurance executives and insurance defense attorneys since 1920. Its members include many of the world’s foremost corporate and insurance lawyers, as well as leading insurance executives.

Ryan Hauck (Pittsburgh, PA) was recently elected by his peers to serve a two-year term as a Council Member on the Allegheny County Bar Association Workers’ Compensation Section Committee. 

Blake Hood (Jacksonville, FL) was recently appointed as co-chair of the Jacksonville Bar Association’s Social Security/Workers’ Compensation Committee. 

Marshall Dennehey has once again been recognized as a leader in client service, earning a spot on BTI Consulting’s Client Service A-Team 2025, which honors law firms delivering the highest levels of service to corporate clients. Based exclusively on feedback from corporate counsel, the firm ranked as a “Stand Out” among all law firms nationwide, affirming our continued strength in building trusted relationships, understanding client goals, and delivering consistent, results-driven service. The BTI Client Service A-Team is the only law firm ranking based solely on direct, unprompted feedback from legal decision-makers at large companies. The 2025 report is based on more than 350 in-depth interviews conducted between May 2024 and February 2025 with general counsel, chief legal officers, and their direct reports. To learn more, visit BTI’s Client Service A-Team, at https://bticonsulting.com/bti-client-service-a-team. 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 3, September 2025, 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. © 2025 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

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

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Recreational Immunity for County Under Landowners' Liability Act

In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc. v. Middlesex County Parks Department, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of Middlesex County Parks Department, holding that the county was immune from liability under New Jersey's Landowners' Liability Act (LLA), notwithstanding its failure to plead the immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Complaint. The case arose from injuries sustained by fourteen-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Kuzma, while playing basketball at Spring Lake Park in South Plainfield on August 23, 2019. The plaintiff observed a crack in the basketball court before beginning to play but did not consider it dangerous. During the game, his foot became caught in the crack, causing him to fall and suffer a significant ankle injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted in ongoing physical limitations and deprived him of the opportunity to play collegiate basketball. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendants negligently maintained the basketball court. Although the county did not assert LLA immunity as an affirmative defense in its answers, it later moved for summary judgment on that basis. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the county had waived the defense by failing to plead it. The county maintained that the plaintiff had received sufficient notice of its intent to rely on the LLA through discovery and therefore suffered no unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, concluding that the county should be permitted to invoke statutory immunity notwithstanding its failure to formally plead the defense. Relying heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court's guidance in Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen, holding a county park was subject to the immunity of the LLA, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the county's failure to plead LLA immunity did not preclude reliance on the defense under the circumstances presented. The court determined that the plaintiff had received adequate notice of the immunity claim through discovery and that permitting the defense furthered the public-policy objectives embodied in the LLA. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's injury and the general societal interest in maintaining parks and recreational facilities in a safe condition. However, the court emphasized that both the legislature and the New Jersey Supreme Court have expressed a clear policy choice to limit liability for public and private landowners who make recreational property available for public use. The decision reinforces the courts' continuing adherence to the Landowners' Liability Act and the principle that recreational lands and facilities should be broadly protected from liability exposure, even in cases involving significant personal injuries.

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

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

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

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group