.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2026

September 30, 2026

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

Dana Gittleman (Philadelphia) authored the article, “The Importance of Memorializing Settlement Terms," appearing in the PLUS Blog on April 27, 2026. In the article, Dana discusses a new Pennsylvania Superior Court decision that shows how overlooked or undocumented terms can unravel even routine negotiations, especially when parties have differing expectations or one side is unrepresented.

Jordan Mazzoni (Scranton) authored the article, “The Best Defense is Already in the File Documentation in Civil Rights Litigation," published on PLUS Blog on July 27. The article discusses how documentation is an essential defense to public entity & civil rights litigation.

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

​John L. Slimm (Mount Laurel) moderated and presented on claims and defenses involving lawsuits against the plaintiffs' bar at the 2026 Legal Malpractice Update for the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education. The seminar offered practical strategies to prevent ethical grievances and legal malpractice, along with sharing expert insights on issues from electronic payments and fee splitting to the impact of AI.

​Heather Carbone (Jacksonville) was a panelist for a webinar hosted by The Workers’ Compensation Claims Professionals (WCCP) Association. As part of the “Meet the Experts” Series, the speakers addressed “Afterthoughts that Undermine a Successful Mediation,” highlighting the pitfalls and challenges of underprepared or unprepared mediation participants.

A. Judd Woytek (King of Prussia) joined a panel at the CLM Alliance (Claims and Litigation Management Alliance) Work Comp Conference in Nashville to present "We See You How Employee Engagement Enhances Work Comp Outcomes." Judd and his fellow panelists discussed the positive impact of employee engagement on claim outcomes, return-to-work timelines, and overall claim costs.

​Joe Lesinski (Pittsburgh), Jim Cole (Philadelphia), Matt Flanagan (New York), and Adam Fogarty (Mt. Laurel) presented several continuing education (CE) programs to claims professionals for our client. The team hosted two one-hour panel discussions on “The Art of Mediation", attended by more than 80 claims professionals. In the afternoon Adam Fogarty and Joe Lesinski presented a CE program on “The Fundamentals of Premises Liability in New Jersey and Pennsylvania" while Matt Flanagan and Jim Cole led a presentation on “Trends in Claims" against attorneys and the evolving issues impacting the legal profession.

​Julia Klubenspies (Roseland) was invited to speak to the 2026 class of incoming resident physicians at The Valley Hospital on ways to reduce the risk of being named in litigation.

​Jon Cross (Philadelphia) and Sara Mazzolla (Roseland) spoke at the 5th Annual ideal3 Summit in Minneapolis on “Information Gathering for New Claims and Prevention of Spoliation." The program explored the ethical and legal obligations surrounding the collection and preservation of evidence once a claim is anticipated.

Sara Mazzolla (Roseland) presented at the annual Roller Skating Association Conference on "The Pros and Cons of Waivers in Your Rink," sharing insights on the use of liability waivers as a risk management tool for skating rink operators and discussing considerations that may impact their effectiveness.

James Hanratty and Erica Cagan (both of Jacksonville) presented at the Florida Defense Lawyers Association's Florida Liability Claims Conference. Their session, "Supporting the Next Generation: Connecting with Associates," explored communication best practices from the perspectives of both a senior shareholder and a newer associate.

Lindsay McCormick (Tampa) was a panelist at the West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar in Anaheim. Lindsay's session, "It May Not Be All Wrapped Up with Your OCIP/CCIP," examined key considerations surrounding Owner-Controlled and Contractor-Controlled Insurance Programs. Attendees gained insight into risk management strategies and coverage issues impacting construction defect litigation and related claims.

Gary M. Samms (King of Prussia and Philadelphia) was a featured speaker at the American Legal Connections (ALC) 2026 Seventh Annual Healthcare Symposium in Atlanta, Georgia. Gary joined a panel discussion titled “The Modern Plaintiff Machine.” Designed for medical professional liability defense attorneys, claims professionals, underwriters, carriers, and health system risk executives, the symposium addressed some of the most pressing challenges in today’s healthcare litigation landscape.

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia) was a featured panelist at the Philadelphia Bar Association CLE program, "Ethics & Legal Malpractice Avoidance." The program provided a comprehensive overview of strategies for avoiding legal malpractice, including ethical considerations, client communication best practices, and common pitfalls that can lead to malpractice claims.

Casey Coyle (Harrisburg and Philadelphia) presented "Recent Civil Law Decisions and Civil Rule Updates" at the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges in Hershey. The session provided attendees with insights into recent developments in Pennsylvania civil law and examined updates to the rules governing civil practice, helping practitioners stay informed on significant changes affecting litigation and courtroom procedure.

PUBLISHED WORKS

Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia) and Alesia S. Sulock (Philadelphia) authored the article, “Whither the Private Reprimand," published in The Legal Intelligencer on July 22, 2026. In the article, Josh and Alesia examine the notable absence of private reprimands issued by the Pennsylvania disciplinary authorities in 2025, discussing the important role that informal admonitions and private reprimands have historically played in addressing attorney misconduct and considering what this trend may signal for the future of attorney discipline in Pennsylvania.

​Blake Hood (Jacksonville) authored the article, “Fla. Workers' Comp Physician Dispensing Ruling Could Produce New Legislative Fight," published on August 5 in Insurance Journal . The article discusses Florida's First District Court of Appeal's decision in Publix Super Markets, Inc., et al. v. Department of Financial Services, et al., holding that while injured workers have an absolute right to choose their own pharmacy or pharmacist, that right does not extend to physicians who dispense medications directly to their patients.

Kimberly Kanoff Berman and Seth Altman (Fort Lauderdale) authored the article, “A Unified, Single Claim for Damages Requires Apportionment in a Joint Proposal: What the Decision in 'Trace Elements' Means for Property Insurance Claims,” published on August 6 in the Daily Business Review. The article analyzes the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Trace Elements v. MacKensen and examines its implications for property insurance claims in Florida, particularly regarding the apportionment of damages in joint settlement proposals.

RECOGNITION

Tiere Phillips (Pittsburgh) was elected to the Allegheny County Bar Association’s Judicial Committee for a Diverse Seat. As one of only three attorneys elected to this role, Tiere will help ensure fairness and equality in representation during judicial evaluations and recommendations for election and reelection in Allegheny County.

Steven A. Johnston (Roseland) received the “Pride of Essex County Award” at the 2026 Essex County LGBTQ+ Pride Celebration on June 17 at the Essex County Martin Luther King, Jr. Justice Building in Newark. Hosted in conjunction with the Essex County Office of LGBTQ+ Affairs and the Essex County Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning Advisory Board, Steven was recognized for his service to the community and his support of equality for members of the LGBTQ+ community.

Jason Banonis (King of Prussia) was honored with the Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s 2026 Attorney of the Year Award at the organization’s annual conference.  A longtime leader and contributor to the organization, Jason was recognized for his dedication and service.

Firm Highlights

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

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. 

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

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.

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

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

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.