.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 32, No. 2, June 2026

June 16, 2026

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

Michael Salvati (Philadelphia) was a featured speaker in the A.M. Best podcast, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” Mike joined a panel of industry experts to discuss the evidentiary and strategic considerations behind a successful misuse defense. The program is available here (must register to listen). https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

Brad Remick (Philadelphia) served as a panelist for a Pennsylvania Defense Institute webinar on Recent Product Liability Pretrial and Trial Experience in Pennsylvania (State and Federal Courts). The program offered a 2026 update on key developments in Pennsylvania product liability law, highlighting significant appellate decisions, evolving jury instruction issues, and procedural trends shaping trial practice.

Sara Mazzolla (Roseland) participated on a panel where she shared her insights at the NAFDMA International Agritourism Association Convention & Expo. She kicked things off on February 8 with “Safety and Legal Prep,” a session focused on proactive strategies for keeping agritourism operations protected. On February 9, Sara continued with “I’m Getting Sued. Now What?,” a dynamic walkthrough of what businesses should expect and how to respond when faced with a claim.

Suzanne Tighe (Scranton) presented to over 200 attendees at PBI’s Joint & Several Liability 2026 Virtual Seminar on February 12. In her session, “Negotiation, Settlement and Release,” Suzanne offered guidance on effective approaches to settlement negotiations, release drafting, and risk management in complex multi‑party matters, and walked participants through techniques for reaching fair, enforceable resolutions with greater efficiency.

Elizabeth Ferguson (Jacksonville) spoke on the topic of Design Professional Liability at the Florida Bar Real Property, Probate, and Trust Law Section’s Advanced Construction Law & Certification Review Course. This course prepares attorneys for board certification, covering topics from construction insurance to contract and form documents. Learn more about the course here: https://www.rpptl.org/DrawCommittees.aspx?GroupCommitteeID=60.

Trish Monahan (Pittsburgh), Brielle Winkler (Mt. Laurel), and Brad Haas (Pittsburgh) delivered a virtual presentation for AAA titled Defense Litigation: Key Concepts and Current Developments. Topics covered included special damages evaluation, recent litigation developments, Pennsylvania specific bodily injury defenses, early claim evaluation, UIM/bad faith issues, coverage considerations, New Jersey auto claims, and psych/concussion cases. These topics were developed in coordination with AAA to address current trends and challenges facing their claims teams.

​John Hare (Philadelphia) moderated a panel discussion at Temple Law School in which leading Pennsylvania judges addressed the origins and importance of judicial independence in the United States. The discussion was cohosted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Judicial Independence, of which John is a member, the American Constitution Society, and the Women's Law Caucus.

On April 1, Chris Conrad (Harrisburg) co-presented on a panel that included Middle District of PA Chief Judge, Matthew Brann, on Civil Rights Litigation as part of “The Courts and the Community: An Educational Series for the Public,” sponsored by Dickinson College.

Jeff Rapattoni (Philadelphia), James H. Cole (Philadelphia), Alec DelConte (Philadelphia), and Allison Krupp (Harrisburg) spoke at the 2026 Pennsylvania Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (PAMIC) Claims Summit on April 8th. Jeff's session "Civil Rico and Insurance Fraud – A National Perspective" highlighted the rise of mass RICO filings and the key cases, trends, and risks shaping their impact. Jim and Alec co-presented "Condominium Conundrum (Acts, Liability, & HO-6 and HOA master policies)," reflecting on the issues insurers encounter in navigating claims arising out of HO-6 and HOA policies. Lastly, Allision led "e-Bikes and e-Vehicles" with two other speakers, tackling the legislation pertaining to this growing form of transportation.

James H. Cole (Philadelphia), Director of our Professional Liability Department, presented four sessions at the Property & Liability Resource Bureau (PLRB) Annual Claims Conference in National Harbor, Maryland.  Jim kicked things off with “Unfair Claims Practices: This is Jeopardy!,” an interactive exploration of the Model Unfair Claims Practices Act (MUCPA) presented in a game‑show format, followed by “Liar, Liar, Your House is on Fire,” a session focused on common insurance fraud issues with an emphasis on property damage.

On April 9, Peggy Bush (Orlando) presented "Current Issues Faced by the Transportation Industry and Trends in Transportation Litigation," to the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) Corporate Counsel Committee via webinar. Ethan Collins (Orlando) assisted Peggy tremendously with research for the presentation.

On April 12, Victoria Scanlon (Scranton) was a faculty presenter at the 2026 American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh. She participated in the “Resident Symposium: Producing Quality Reports,” focusing her presentation on “How to Write a Great Report: Malpractice Lawyer’s Perspective.” Vicky, the only attorney presenter for this two-hour segment, was joined by several health care professionals including diagnostic radiologists, an interventional radiologist, an internal medicine physician, and a radiologist turned AI entrepreneur expert.

PUBLISHED WORKS

​Brad Haas (Pittsburgh) authored the article, “Paul Miller's Law: Direct and Punitive Transportation Exposure," published in CLM Magazine.

RECOGNITION

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia) has been named one of four finalists nationwide for the 2026 CLM Professional of the Year Award in the Outside Counsel category. This prestigious national recognition honors an attorney who demonstrates exceptional commitment to claims and litigation management through thought leadership, mentorship, innovative practices, and meaningful contributions to the CLM community.

Our attorneys Rob Williams (Jacksonville), Terrence Hill (Orlando), Kimberly Berman (Ft. Lauderdale), Harris Kirsch (Ft. Lauderdale), and AC Nash (Ft. Lauderdale) attended the National Retail and Restaurant Defense Association Annual Conference in Amelia Island, FL, this week, where they connected with clients, colleagues, and industry leaders across the retail and restaurant space.

As Coach for Widener University Delaware Law School’s Moot Court Team, Joshua W. Brownlie (Philadelphia) led the team to victory at the 41st Annual Jerome Prince Memorial Evidence Moot Court Competition at Brooklyn Law School, one of the nation’s premier appellate advocacy competitions. Competing against 36 law schools from across the country — including Drexel, Villanova, NYU, and Yale — the team rose to the top to secure the national title. Adding to the achievement, student, Jayden Velazquez, was named Top Oralist out of all competitors. Josh also serves as an adjunct professor at the law school. Learn more about the competition here: https://www.widener.edu/news/noteworthy/delaware-law-students-capture-first-place-jerome-prince-memorial-evidence-competition.

Firm Highlights

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. 

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

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

SIU Gets a Boost: NJ Supreme Court Affirms Insurers' Right to Litigate, Not Arbitrate, Fraud Claims

In a significant win for insurers' Special Investigation Units, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified that statutory insurance fraud and racketeering claims may proceed in court rather than through PIP arbitration. At issue was whether insurance fraud claims brought under New Jersey's Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA) and the state's Anti-Racketeering Act (NJ RICO) are subject to mandatory arbitration under the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act’s (AICRA) PIP dispute-resolution framework. Allstate had sued a network of medical practices, physicians, and related corporate entities, alleging a scheme to extract more than $1.7 million in PIP benefits through fraudulent and misleading billing. The trial court dismissed Allstate's complaint and compelled arbitration, reading AICRA's arbitration clause — which covers "any dispute regarding the recovery of... benefits" under PIP coverage, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1(a) — as sweeping in fraud and racketeering claims along with routine benefit disputes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal, adopting Judge Gilson's opinion below (480 N.J. Super. 566 (App. Div. 2025)) as its own reasoning. The Court held that IFPA and RICO claims fall outside the scope of AICRA's PIP arbitration mechanism because that "streamlined and specialized" process cannot grant the relief those statutes contemplate — treble damages, injunctive relief, broad discovery, and joinder of third parties — and because arbitrators lack authority to award compensatory or treble damages to an insurer. The Court also rejected the argument that Allstate's own Decision Point Review Plans independently compel arbitration, finding those plan provisions no broader than AICRA's own arbitration clause. Notably, the Court expressly disagreed with the Third Circuit's contrary holding in GEICO v. Mt. Prospect Chiropractic Center, 98 F.4th 463 (3d Cir. 2024), concluding it is not bound by that federal interpretation of New Jersey law. Insurers retain the right to pursue IFPA and RICO claims in the Law Division, with a jury trial. For SIU units and NJ insurance carriers, this decision is a significant win: it forecloses defense clinics' primary procedural tool for shunting fraud investigations into limited-scope PIP arbitration, where treble damages, RICO relief, and meaningful discovery were never realistically available. Carriers building cases against fraudulently structured clinics, straw-owned practices, or coordinated billing networks can now proceed with confidence that a well-pleaded IFPA/RICO complaint stays in the Law Division rather than being diverted to arbitration on a motion to compel. Practically, this strengthens SIU's leverage in settlement negotiations, preserves civil discovery tools (subpoenas, depositions, joinder of related corporate entities) critical to unwinding complex ownership and referral schemes, and resolves the split with the Third Circuit in favor of NJ insurers — at least as a matter of state law. Expect increased reliance on IFPA civil actions, rather than PIP arbitration demands, as SIU's primary enforcement vehicle going forward.

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

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

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.