.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 1, March 2025

March 1, 2025

RECOGNITION

Heather Byrer Carbone (Jacksonville, FL) was honored with the John J. Schickel Professionalism and Excellence Award by the E. Robert Williams Inn of Court. 

Peggy Smith Bush (Orlando, FL) and Heather Byrer Carbone (Jacksonville, FL) have been recognized as 2024 Florida Trend “Legal Elite NOTABLE - Women Leaders in Law.” Both were honored for their impact in the field of law, mentorship, and leadership in professional organizations and civic/community service initiatives. 

Congratulations to Jeremy J. Zacharias, RPLU, (Mount Laurel, NJ office) on his election to the Board of Trustees of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society. Jeremy has been an active member of PLUS since 2016. 
 

PUBLISHED ARTICLES

February 18, 2025 – The New Jersey Law Journal published David Levine’s (Roseland, NJ) article “Navigating Preexisting Conditions in New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Claims.” Read his article here.  

January 28, 2025 – Jillian Dinehart (Cleveland, OH) authored, “‘I Was Just Following Orders’ – Ohio’s Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Applies Fourth Amendment’s Good-Faith Exception to First Amendment Retaliation Claims,” published in PLUS Blog. The article discusses Hall v. Navarre, where the Sixth Circuit found that a police officer who ticketed a protestor for disorderly conduct, despite not personally witnessing the conduct, had qualified immunity for the plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim. Read Jillian’s article here.

November 27, 2024 – The Insurance Journal published Sean Greenwalt’s (Tampa, FL) article “Florida Appeals Court Nods Enforceability of Forum Selection Clauses in PIP Cases.” You can read Sean’s article here.

November 27, 2024 – The New Jersey Law Journal published “Opportunity Knocks: Modern Trends with Business Email Compromise in a Changing Cyber World” by David Shannon (Philadelphia, PA) and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ). You can read their article here.
 

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

February 24, 2025 – Mohamed Bakry (Philadelphia, PA) co-moderated “Behind the Bench: A Candid Look at What Federal Judges Expect from Lawyers” at the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel’s (FDCC) Annual Winter Meeting. 

February 23–27, 2025 – John Delany, III (Philadelphia, PA), chair of our Catastrophic Claims Practice Group, moderated a compelling session at the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel Winter Meeting. Jack joined author Colum McCann, American Book Award-winning author of Let the Great World Spin, to discuss his book, American Mother. The session’s theme focused on how a more empathetic approach to practicing law cannot only increase understanding and good will between plaintiffs and defendants but also lower the likelihood of a nuclear verdict and bring about resolutions that all parties can feel better about.

February 19, 2025 – Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) co-presented the webinar “Bad Faith Legal Update” to members of International Association of Special Investigation Units (IASIU). Topics included current legislation affecting the SIU and anti-fraud professionals, case-specific legal decisions affecting the SIU community, as well as trending decisions and pending legislation.

February 12, 2025 – Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) joined a panel at Claims Litigation Management’s (CLM) 2025 Focus Conference: Work Comp, Casualty and Risk Management. In “Workers’ Comp Risk Management Best Practices: Insights from High-Risk Industries,” the panel addressed the ongoing challenges of workers’ compensation in high-risk industries. 

February 11, 2025 – Rachel Insalaco (Scranton, PA) co-presented “Special Education Law: The Ultimate Guide” at a National Business Institute CLE. Rachel’s presentation addressed bullying and/or harassment involving students with special needs.

February 10, 2025 – Sara Mazzolla (Roseland, NJ) joined a panel of International Amusement & Leisure Defense Association professionals to present “Risk Management and Understanding the Claims Process” at the NAFDMA Agritourism Association Convention & Expo.

January 30, 2025 – Jacqueline Reynolds (King of Prussia, PA) co-presented “The Lawyer’s Guide to Mitigating Burnout: Caring for Ourselves and Our Clients in Challenging Times 2025” for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute.

January 28, 2025 – Samuel Cohen (Philadelphia, PA) participated in the session “Best Interest Reviews: Decoding FINRA 2330” at Level Up at OneVoice Annual Kickoff 2025.

January 16, 2025 – Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) was a featured speaker in the Philadelphia Bar Association’s webcast “Recent Ethics Developments 2024.” Hosted by the Professional Guidance and Responsibility Committee, the program highlighted key cases, ethics opinions, disciplinary decisions, and changes in the rules of professional conduct from 2024. 

January 16, 2025 – Jon Cross (Philadelphia, PA) and Thomas Brown (Orlando, FL) were speakers during the three-hour presentation at the “Legal Roundtable” held at the Amusement Industry Manufacturers and Suppliers (AIMS) Conference.

January 16, 2025 – Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) discussed “Ethical Considerations for the SIU” at the National Insurance Crime Bureau’s (NICB) Mid-Atlantic Major Medical Fraud Task Force Training Event. Designed for NICB agents covering Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, the program provided information and strategies related to the prevention, detection, and prosecution of insurance fraud and crime. 

January 15, 2025 – A.C. Nash, Ryan Burns and Edwyna Estime (all of Fort Lauderdale, FL) headlined at the RIMS - Broward County chapter meeting. They co-presented “New Year, New Rules – Florida’s New Civil Procedure Rules,” which examined the Florida Supreme Court’s changes to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

January 10, 2025 – Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) co-presented “Dealing with Difficult Opposing Counsel 2025” for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. 

December 18, 2024 – “Restoration After the Data Breach!” In the final episode of his 2024 PLUS podcast series, David Shannon (Philadelphia, PA) spoke with disaster restoration expert Heath Renfrow about managing sophisticated cyber attacks. Listen to the PLUS podcast here or read the transcript here.

December 18, 2024 – Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) presented “Legal Malpractice Avoidance” at a Dauphin County Bar Association CLE webinar.

December 17, 2024 – Sara Mazzolla (Mount Laurel, NJ) participated in the Sports and Entertainment Risk Management Alliance (SERMA®)’s webinar “Roller Skating and Ice Skating Risk Management.”

December 9, 2024 – Matthew Keris (Scranton, PA) was a panelist for a webinar hosted by the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform. In “A-Z on AI! Artificial Intelligence Litigation Trends and Ethical Issues,” Matt and his co-panelists led a discussion on AI from a medical liability perspective, including how the defense can weaponize AI and the ethical issues of AI in legal practice.

December 6, 2024 – Jack Delany (Philadelphia, PA) presented “Empathy in High-Stakes Trials” at the Litigation Counsel of America’s Renaissance Symposium XVIII. The symposium offered a full day of trial tactics and strategies, led by some of the country’s leading trial lawyers with years of experience, successes, and verdicts.

November 26, 2024 – Kimberly Kanoff Berman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) of our Florida Appellate Law practice presented at the National Business Institute course, “Obtaining Evidence from Electronic Devices in Florida.” The program focused on how to gather evidence from electronic devices and get it authenticated when hiring an expert is not feasible.

November 21, 2024 – Sara Mazzolla (Mount Laurel, NJ) and her International Amusement & Leisure Defense Association (IALDA) colleagues presented a Legal Roundtable at the International Association of Amusement Parks & Attractions (IAAPA) Expo 2024. The panel covered topics including including a three-part presentation on demystifying the science of acceleration forces; combatting reptile theory; using AI for demonstrative exhibits and jury consultants; updates on ASTM proposals and waivers; and case law in various jurisdictions.

November 20, 2024 – Anthony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) was one of the key speakers at the annual Delaware Valley Workers’ Compensation Trust’s (DVWCT) Claim Prevention seminar. This live event was attended by risk control employees, managers, police chiefs, command staff, department heads, and local government leadership in the townships and municipalities that are administered by the DVWCT. Tony spoke on the importance of presenting unified and global defenses between workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, internal grievance arbitration, and employment law where applicable in cases involving workplace injuries. Tony was able to give examples of this unified directive, citing a current case in litigation involving all of these areas of law and the blue print used to provide a global defense. 


 

Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 1, March 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

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.

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

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.

News

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

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.

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. 

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.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Result

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

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