.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2024

December 1, 2024

RECOGNITION

We're proud to announce that six attorneys from our Wilmington office have been selected "Top Lawyers" by Delaware Today Magazine. Each year, the publication invites all practicing attorneys in the Delaware Bar to participate in a peer nomination process to select Top Lawyers in numerous practice areas across the state. Congratulations to:

Sarah Brannan Cole
Bradley Goewert
Thomas Marcoz, Jr.
Lorenza Wolhar
Aaron Moore
Keri Morris-Johnston

 

PUBLISHED ARTICLES

November 18, 2024 – The Legal Intelligencer published “What Are Forbidden Sexual Relations with Clients?” by Alesia Sulock’s and Josh J.T. Byrne (both of Philadelphia, PA). You can read their article here. 

November 14, 2024 – A. Judd Woytek’s (King of Prussia, PA) article “Goodbye 'Yellow Freight' Road?” was published in The Legal Intelligencer. You can read his article here.

November 11, 2024 – Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) provided commentary in the article, “Workers’ Comp Making Gains in Attracting Claims Talent,” appearing in the November issue of CLM Magazine. The article discusses Rising Medical Solution’s benchmark study concerning the workers’ compensation sector. Read here.

October 29, 2024 – “Attorney Well-Being Doesn’t Have to Be Spooky: Steps Attorneys Can Take to Support Mental, Emotional and Physical Health,” by Dana Gittleman and Alesia Sulock (both of Philadelphia, PA) was published by PLUS Blog. You can read their article here.

October 15, 2024 – The Legal Intelligencer published “How Do You Define Success? Four Women Lawyers Share Their Thoughts,” authored by Josie Scanlan (Roseland, NJ). You can read her article here.

October 10, 2024 – Gregory Graham’s (Pittsburgh, PA) article, “Don’t Reinvent the Wheel: Approaching Gen AI Usage in Litigation,” was published in The Legal Intelligencer. You can read his article here.

Fall 2024 – James Cullen (Pittsburgh, PA) authored the article, “Grossly Underestimated: Exploring Gross Negligence and Liability Waivers in Pennsylvania Premises Liability Law,” which was published in the Fall 2024 issue of Pulse, the publication of the Pennsylvania Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. You can read Jim’s article here.

September 20, 2024 – Kimberly Berman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) authored “The ‘Sunshine’ State: New Comparative Negligence Jury Instructions Following the Adoption of House Bill 837,” which appeared in the Daily Business Review. Read it here.

September 18, 2024 – Alesia Sulock’s 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 1)” was published in The Legal Intelligencer. You can read their article here.

September 13, 2024 – Heather Carbone (Jacksonville, FL) authored an article in the Jacksonville Business Journal about the potential impact of Florida’s new heat exposure law on workers’ compensation in the state. Read “Florida’s New Heat Exposure Law May Impact Workers’ Comp” here.  

September 12, 2024 – Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) authored the article, “6 Key Workers’ Compensation Safety and Data Analysis Considerations,” for Risk & Insurance. Read the article here.

September 2024 – Rachel Insalaco's (Scranton, PA) article, “Let the Sunshine In: Exploring the Impact of Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act on School Board Decision-Making,” was published in Counterpoint. You can read Rachel’s article here.

September 5, 2024 – The Legal Intelligencer published Matthew Keris’s (Scranton, PA) article “Say ‘Goodbye’ to Medical Negligence Cases as We Know Them.” You can read his article here.

August 20, 2024 – Christopher Woodward and Allison Krupp (both of Harrisburg, PA) co-authored the article, “‘Regular Use Exclusions’ Stand: Pa. Supreme Court’s Latest Ruling Post-’Gallagher’,” appearing in The Legal Intelligencer’s Insurance Law Supplement. Read here.

August 9, 2024 – The Legal Intelligencer published Michael McMaster’s (Philadelphia, PA) article “AI in Workers’ Compensation: Are We There Yet?” You can read Mike’s article here.  

August 2024 – Jon Cross (Philadelphia, PA) was published in Insurance Law Global’s The Sports Bulletin, 3rd Edition. Jon wrote on the topic “‘No-duty’ Rule Is Key to the Successful Defense of Sports Injury Lawsuits in Pennsylvania, U.S.A.” You can read his article here.

August 2024 – Alicia Caridi (Tampa, FL), Sara Mazzolla (Roseland, NJ) and Carla Candelario (Tampa, FL) were also published in Insurance Law Global’s The Sports Bulletin, 3rd Edition. Alicia, Sara and Carla discussed “Negotiating the Call: What the Americans with Disabilities Act May Demonstrate as Trends in Finding the Line Between Equal Participation and Safety.” You can read their article here.
 

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

November 25, 2024 – John “Jack” Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented along with an all-star lineup of some of the most experienced and respected trial attorneys and jurists in the region at the New Jersey State Bar Association’s Regional Trial Bootcamp. Presenters walked attendees through the framework of a trial by conducting the comprehensive trial of Al Capone for the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.

November 20, 2024 – Gregory Graham (Pittsburgh, PA) presented “Searching for AI: Case Management Tips for Existing Litigation's AI Issues” for the Pennsylvania Defense Institute.

On November 19, 2024 – Scott Dunlop (Pittsburgh, PA) presented “Local Government Immunity in Pennsylvania—A Study of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act,” sponsored by PCoRP (The Pennsylvania Counties Risk Pool), to brokers and producers.

November 14, 2024 – Teresa Sirianni (Pittsburgh, PA) presented on a panel, “A Primer on Pursuing and Defending Remedies and Damages,” at the annual Allegheny County Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Symposium.  Teresa, along with Colleen Ramage, Esq. of Ramage Lykos, LLC and federal Magistrate Judge Kelly Their, discussed the legal and equitable forms of relief that are available in the vast area of employment law, strategic concerns to consider when pursuing or defending your side of the case and practical wisdom that can only come from a view from the bench. 

November 14, 2024 – Sean Greenwalt (Tampa, FL) and Alexander Lloret (Orlando, FL) hosted a webinar with the Central Florida CPCU Society. “First Party Auto and Property Year in Review: 2024 Case Law Impact on Claims Investigation and Evaluation” focused on the impact of recent Florida legislative and case law results on first-party auto and fire insurance claim investigations and evaluations.

October 31, 2024 – Kimberly Berman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) was a guest speaker at the Miami-Dade Bar Association Appellate Court Committee’s CLE program “Advanced Brief Writing.” 

October 29, 2024 – Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented the webinar “Legal/Ethics Update” at the Ohio Chapter of International Association of Special Investigation Units Fall Training.

October 22, 2024 – Matthew Burdalski and Ariel Brownstein (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) presented “Cracking the Case: Investigating Chiropractic Care from Record Review to Examination Under Oath” at the New Jersey Special Investigators Association’s 33rd annual seminar. 

October 18, 2024 – Linda Wagner Farrell (Jacksonville, FL) was a panelist for two “evidence” discussions at the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims’ OJCC Work Comp Academy. The program is aimed to educate young lawyers or lawyers new to the practice area.

October 18, 2024 – Christopher Conrad (Harrisburg, PA) co-presented with Kathleen Metcalfe, Esquire, managing attorney for special education at Raffaele & Associates, “From Complaint to Appeal and Beyond: Litigating a Special Education Due Process Case,” at the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s Exceptional Children Conference 2024.

October 16, 2024 – Robert Fitzgerald (Mount Laurel, NJ) co-presented “Know When to Hold ‘em, When to Fold ‘em! Best Bets to Limit Exposure in Claims Management” at the National Workers’ Compensation and Disability Conference. 

October 9, 2024 – Dana Gittleman (Philadelphia, PA) and Estelle McGrath (Pittsburgh, PA) co-presented at the Pittsburgh Insurance Club’s annual Pittsburgh I-Day. Dana and Estelle presented “Risk Management for Insurance Agents and Brokers: Best Practices to Avoid Liability.” 

October 8, 2024 – Matthew Keris (Scranton, PA) was a featured speaker at the 2024 American Society for Healthcare Risk Management Annual Conference in San Diego. Matt served as a panelist for “Multi-Disciplinary Evaluation of Opportunities and Risks with Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Health Care,” “Recommendations to Safely Use AI in Health Care,” and “Public Perception of ‘Big Medicine’ Requires New Jury Considerations.”

October 4, 2024 – Linda Farrell and Heather Carbone (both of Jacksonville, FL) made presentations at the Northeast Florida International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals 2024 Fall Forum. Linda’s presented “Medical-Marijuana-Workers’ Compensation,” and Heather was part of a panel that discussed “Legal Updates/Changes Impacting Florida.”

October 3, 2024 – Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) delivered two presentations at the National Insurance Crime Bureau’s Medical & Work Comp Fraud Conference in Chicago: “Ethics and the Investigator” and “Measuring an SIU Program’s Success In an Ever-Changing Environment.” 

September 26, 2024 – Dana Gittleman and Alesia Sulock (both of Philadelphia, PA) participated in the panel discussion, “Attorney Well-Being as a Matter of Professional Competence,” at the Professional Liability Defense Federation Annual Meeting. 

September 26, 2024 – Christopher Conrad (Harrisburg, PA) co-presented “UNcivil Discourse: The 1st Amendment and Regulating Speech at Public School Board Meetings” at the Professional Liability Defense Federation annual meeting. 

On September 20, 2024 – Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) participated in a panel discussion, “Emergency Planning for Attorneys,” at the annual Philadelphia Bar Association Bench-Bar Conference.

September 19, 2024 – Lindsay McCormick (Tampa, FL) was a speaker at the annual Claims and Litigation Management Alliance Construction Conference. Lindsay co-presented “Ethics Escape Room 2.0: Construction Defect Style.” 

September 19, 2024 – Darren Newberry (Pittsburgh, PA) joined a panel of insurance professionals to present the webinar, “Trends in Oil and Gas Pipeline, Wellsite and Energy Production Injury Litigation,” produced by AM Best Information Services. 

September 12, 2024 – Anthony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) co-presented “Average Weekly Wage” at the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Workers’ Compensation Fall Section Meeting in Hershey, PA.

September 10, 2024 – Jon Cross (Philadelphia, PA) co-presented “Audit Your Park to Lower Your Premiums” at the International Adventure & Trampoline Park Association annual conference.

September 10, 2024 – Matthew Flanagan (New York, NY and Melville, NY) was one of the guest speakers at the New York State Bar Association’s statewide “Risk Management for Lawyers” webinar. The issues he addressed included the joint and several liability of attorneys for malpractice under New York law; intra-firm relationships of attorneys; the supervisory obligations of lawyers under the Rules of Professional Conduct; and file retention requirements for attorneys under New York law. 

September 5, 2024 – James Cole (Philadelphia, PA) and Christopher Block (Roseland, NJ) once again served as faculty at the Claims and Litigation Management Alliance annual Claims College. Jim served as faculty for the School of Property Claims, and Chris served as faculty for the School of Casualty Claims. In their respective curriculums, they shared strategies and tools that claims professionals can apply to help them better manage their case files.

August 26, 2024 – Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) participated in three seminars at the 2024 International Association of Special Investigation Unites Conference. He presented “SIU Ethics,” “Building a Better Major Case: From Investigation to Suit,” and “Legal Updates.”

August 16, 2024 – Megan Nelson (Orlando, FL), who is also a registered nurse, presented “Tort Reform: Where Do We Go from Here?” at the Florida Society for Healthcare Risk Management and Patient Safety 44th Annual Meeting and Education Conference. 

August 5, 2024 – Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) was a panelist for the Philadelphia Bar Association Family Law Section webinar “Suicide Prevention and the 302 Process: Training for Family Law Practitioners.” 

August 1, 2024 – Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) was a co-presenter in “The Dream Team Approach to WC Case Management,” which was part of Claims and Litigation Management Alliance Workers’ Comp Week, a five-part series focusing on the latest trends and hot topics in workers’ compensation. 

August 1, 2024 – A.C. Nash (Fort Lauderdale, FL) presented “DE&I – Your Ally in the War for Talent” at the 2024 Florida Risk Management Society Educational Conference. This session focused on inclusivity, why it is important, and how it can be a key differentiator in attracting and retaining talent within an organization.

August 1, 2024 – Scott Gemberling (Philadelphia, PA) co-presented the webinar “Dram Shop, The Toxicology and the Law” for the National Academy of Continuing Legal Education. 

July 31, 2024 – Anthony Williott (Pittsburgh, PA) presented “Nursing Homes vs. Medical Malpractice Litigation” at the National Business Institute Nursing Home Failure of Care Litigation 2024 webinar. 

July 30, 2024 – Mohamed Bakry (Philadelphia, PA) co-presented “DEI Policies in the Crosshairs: A Discussion of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Private Sector” at the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel annual meeting in Toronto. 

July 22, 2024 – Harold Moroknek (Westchester, NY), with participation from Scott Taffet (Westchester, NY), Peggy Smith Bush and Thomas Brown (both in Orlando, FL), presented “Mock Trial, Trial Run, Tabletop Role Playing – GUILTY or NOT?” at the 2024 Annual Summer Meeting for the Bus Industry Safety Council. 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2024, 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. © 2024 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

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees Due to Lack of Evidence to Support Fee Awarded

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding appellate fees to People’s Trust Insurance Company based upon a lack of evidence to support the attorney’s fee award in RM & Assocs. Consulting, Inc. v. People's Trust Ins. Co., 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 4654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). People’s Trust was the insurer of a residential property that had sustained water damage. RM & Associates Consulting was hired by the homeowner to perform mitigation services at the property. The homeowner assigned post-loss benefits to RM and RM subsequently filed suit against People’s Trust alleging that it had not been paid the money it was owed for the mitigation services. People’s Trust defended the lawsuit on the ground that the policy required the insured to notify the insurer before authorizing repairs so People's Trust could elect to use its preferred contractor. Because the owner did not comply with that provision, People's Trust asserted its liability was limited to the amount that its preferred contractor would have charged for the work, which People's Trust contended was $2,000. People's Trust paid that amount to RM before RM filed suit. People’s Trust filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. RM appealed the summary judgment ruling and the ruling was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate court also granted People’s Trust’s entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, subject to the trial court’s determination of the amount of fees, based upon an offer of judgment made by People's Trust. On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees People’s Trust was entitled to. At the hearing, People’s Trust presented testimony from it’s fee expert, supervising trial counsel and appellate counsel. People’s Trust sought recovery of $24,866.17 for work performed by appellate counsel. The request primarily consisted of work performed in preparation of the answer brief. The fee expert testified that more than ninety hours spent preparing the answer brief was reasonable given the complexity and significance of the underlying issue. The appellate court found that the fee expert’s testimony fell short of meeting the necessary standard of demonstrating that the hours expended were necessary. The appellate court found that the billing records did not serve to cure the deficient testimony, as the billing records did not contain adequate details regarding the specific tasks performed. Rather the records contained entries such as “answer brief” which the appellate court found to be insufficient. The appellate court noted that neither the fee expert or counsel addressed how the prior research and briefing in the parallel litigation informed the work in the instant matter. The appellate court noted this was significant in that a court's attorney's fees award must exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, citing Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based upon the record failing to support the finding of the trial court, the 4th DCA remanded the case to the trial court for a reconsideration and redetermination of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees supported by competent substantial evidence. The 4th DCA reiterated that the fee expert’s focus on the quality of the work and the importance of the work to People’s Trust did not make up for the perceived deficiencies in the position that spending over ninety hours on a single answer brief was reasonable. Whether moving for attorney’s fees or challenging the amount of fees being sought by an opposing party, practitioners should be mindful of the evidence being used to support the claims being made. Parties should pay close attention to whether the hours being sought may be impacted by prior litigation either party may have engaged in. A party must be prepared to address how prior litigation efforts did or did not impact the amount of hours being claimed in current litigation. Lastly, billing records must be sufficiently detailed so as to support any potential future fee claim.

Thought Leadership

United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida finds Evidence of Replacement Cost Value is Admissible and Recoverable Even When Repairs Have Not Been Made

The plaintiff filed a claim for damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. It claimed damages were over $24 million, but the carrier accepted partial coverage and paid $8,307.49 for secondary components. The carrier found hurricane damage to the building, but it was below the insurance policy’s $3.6 million deductible. The plaintiff sued for breach of the insurance policy. The carrier argued in a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff could not recover replacement cost value (RCV) because the property repairs had not been effectuated. The policy provided for RCV, but only after the repairs were completed. The carrier argued that because the repairs were not completed, the plaintiff was not entitled to RCV damages. The plaintiff argued the carrier could not withhold the actual cost value (ACV) due, which was the main allegation of the lawsuit, then fault it for not making the repairs to unlock the RCV. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected the carrier’s argument, finding that when an insurer allegedly breached the policy by withholding coverage, it could not hide behind a repair-contingent provision to block the insured from RCV damages at trial. The court found the issue to be whether the contractual language designed to preclude certain coverage until after repairs are completed barred an insured from seeking those damages at trial when repairs were not complete. The court noted the Eleventh Circuit had not resolved this issue and neither side pointed to a definitive answer from the Florida Supreme Court. The court reasoned that it must look to the Sixth District Court of Appeal (6th DCA), which is the court which would have heard this case if it was in state court. The court noted the 6th DCA recently addressed this issue in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 427 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026). The Rodriguez Court found that a breach of contract action is designed to adjudicate not only whether the contract was breached, but also evaluate the damages incurred had the breach not occurred, which the Rodriguez court found to be recovery of the RCV. This court also noted basic Florida contract principles compelled the same result, as a material breach frees the nonbreaching party to suspend its own performance and can demand the full benefit of its bargain, including RCV damages. Finally, the court found the distinction between a full denial and partial denial did not compel a different result. It found the policy required the carrier to acknowledge coverage and pay ACV for all covered damages, and the failure to do that is a material breach, entitling the insured to all of the damages available under the contract, which included the RCV.

Result

Federal Statute Declared Constitutional

In this products liability case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court and upheld the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which resulted in judgment as a matter of law for the defendant manufacturer.

News

106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America

Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 106 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for this recognition. Additionally, four of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” awards in their respective practice areas and demographic regions. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. For more information, please visit https://www.bestlawyers.com/. OUR 2027 LAWYERS OF THE YEAR Harrisburg, PA Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers Compensation Law - Employers Roseland, NJ Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA Philadelphia, PA Nicholas D. Bowers, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Josh J. T. Byrne, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Jefferey J. Chomko, Insurance Law James H. Cole, Insurance Law John J. Delany III, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Laurianne Falcone, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John P. Gonzales, Employment Law - Management John Hare, Appellate Practice Daniel D. Krebbs, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Michele Punturi, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Bradley D. Remick, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Andrea Cicero Rock, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robin M. Romano, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Daniel J. Ryan, Jr., Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Gary M. Samms, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Christopher N. Santoro, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation -Defendants Josh D. Scheets, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Robert P. Schenk, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robert E. Smith, Insurance Law Robin Snyder, Litigation - Health Care Michael L. Turner, Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Claire Breaux Ventola, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Melissa Devich Cochran, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants  John F. Deasy, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Daniel W. Deitrick, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Douglas C. LaSota, Litigation - Construction; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Joseph V. Lesinski, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants   Christian D. Marquis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia A. Monahan, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Patrick T. Reilly, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Brett C. Shear, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Teresa O. Sirianni, Education Law; Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment Stuart Sostmann, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Scranton, PA Sarah E. Argo, Litigation - Insurance Michael J. Connolly, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Matthew Keris, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants John T. McGrath, Jr., Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants William J. McPartland, Insurance Law John R. Nealon, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Victoria Scanlon, Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Michael A. Sebastian, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Thomas A. Specht, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Suzanne Tighe, Litigation Insurance Harrisburg , PA Casey Alan Coyle, Administrative/Regulatory Law; Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation Brittany E. Bakshi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Shannon P. Fellin, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Allison Krupp, Insurance Law John R. Ninosky, Litigation – Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers King of Prussia, PA  Michael L. Detweiler, Construction Law Joseph L. Hoynoski III, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Gregory J. Kelley, Construction Law, Litigation - Construction Anthony Natale III, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Francis X. Wickersham, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers A. Judd Woytek, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers Erie, PA Patrick M. Carey, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Joel M. Snavely, Health Care Law; Insurance Law New Haven, CT Michael Wrona, Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Bankruptcy  Mount Laurel, NJ David D. Blake, Litigation - Insurance Barbara Davis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lynne Nahmani, Litigation - Health Care John H. Osorio, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John L. Slimm, Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants Roseland, NJ Robert T. Evers, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Julia Klubenspies, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard C. Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia M. McDonagh, Appellate Practice Sunny Sparano, Litigation - Construction Randall S. Watts, Health Care Law New York, NY Tonya M. Lindsey, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Tampa, FL Michael Archibald, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lindsay G. McCormick, Litigation – Construction Orlando, FL Thomas F. Brown, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Dante C. Rohr, Commercial Litigation Fort Lauderdale, FL Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Appellate Practice Patrick M. Delong, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Jacksonville, FL  Heather Byrer Carbone, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Linda Wagner Farrell, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Elizabeth B. Ferguson, Litigation - Construction James P. Hanratty, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Wilmington, DE Sarah B. Cole, Litigation - Insurance Benjamin K. Durstein, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Maria R. Granaudo, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants  Keri L. Morris-Johnston, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Cincinnati, OH Timothy B. Schenkel, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David E. Williamson, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Cleveland, OH Vincent E. Cononico, Litigation – Insurance, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Jillian L. Dinehart, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David J. Fagnilli, Insurance Law Jason P. Ferrante, Health Care Law, Litigation - Health Care Andrew H. Isakoff, Transportation Law Leslie M. Jenny, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendant OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS: ONES TO WATCH Jacksonville, FL Sean J. Reeves, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Orlando, FL Carolin A. Pacheco, Insurance Law Mount Laurel Stacey Gorin, Insurance Law Melville, NY Kimberly Gitlin, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Matthew A. Gray, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Philadelphia, PA Holli K. Archer, Health Care Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law Emily Pritchyk, Commercial Litigation; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Taylor E. Kosko, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Alana Staniszewski, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Michael D. Winsko, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants; Transportation Law King of Prussia, PA Richard Lechette, Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Ellen C. Bodenmiller Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Tampa Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Ellen C. Bodenmiller Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Tampa Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Thought Leadership

First DCA Reverses Excessive Jury Award Unsupported by the Evidence

In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a claim with Universal for damages caused by a water and sewage back up through the plumbing system and existing through multiple fixtures including the washing machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub and toilet. Universal investigated the claim, issued payment for resulting water damage totaling $7,000.00 in actual cash value ($12,000.00 in replacement cost value). The plaintiffs sought additional benefits for work needed to access the below-slab cast iron plumbing system due to the failure of the system from rust, deterioration, corrosion and breaks in the line. Universal denied any additional benefits for access. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed suit. During litigation, Universal sent a plumber to inspect the home and the plumber concluded the pipes were clogged but could be cleaned. The plaintiffs’ plumber testified that the plumbing system needed to be replaced due to holes and openings in the pipes. The plaintiffs introduced two estimates prepared by Triad Restoration services totaling $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value and an executed contract with another company for repairs with the amounts of repair redacted. Since the insurance policy did not provide coverage for repair or replacement of the plumbing system, the jury only had to decide whether the plumbing system needed to be replaced, and if it did, Universal would owe for the access costs; the jury verdict form required the jury to determine both the replacement cost value and actual cash value amounts. The jury asked if it had to rely on the Triad estimates for their amounts. The trial court advised the amount awarded had to be based on the evidence presented at trial and the law given by the trial court. The jury awarded $335,000.00 in replacement cost value or $305,000.00 in actual cash value. Universal motioned for a new trial arguing the amount awarded was unsupported by the evidence and then moved for remittitur. The trial court denied both motions and this appeal followed. The court found that while a jury’s verdict should only be disturbed with caution and discretion, the trial court must give the properly challenged award close scrutiny and determine whether it bears a reasonable relation to the damaged provided, is supported by the evidence, and could have been reached in a logical manner by reasonable means §768.74(3), (5)(d)-(e), Fla. Stat. The court found the trial court did consider the statutory requirements at the hearing on Universal’s remittitur motion and was concerned about a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and injury suffered and whether the award was supported by the evidence, but ultimately denied the motion, reasoning that the jury had been properly instructed to fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs. The court noted the only evidence providing the basis for the jury verdict was Triad’s estimates and those valued the plaintiffs' claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value; no valuation evidence reasonably supported the jury verdict. The plaintiffs argued that the jury was entitled to consider more than the estimates, but the court conveyed the evidence provided did not give the jury a way to reach the amounts they awarded. The court was also not swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument regarding inflation and later price increases, but the court noted that no evidence via the contract, nor testimony regarding increase in labor, material, fuel or construction costs were entered into the record.  The court concluded the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but it may not supply a damages number by speculation. The court did not find any of the plaintiffs’ remaining argument persuasive either. The court reversed the denial of Universal’s remittitur motion and motion for new trial as to damaged and remanded the case. The court ended its opinion with advising the trial court must determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the property measure of damages under the policy and order remittitur in an amount consistent with that determination and the evidence.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars