.

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

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Exclusion of Legal Malpractice Expert as Impermissible Net Opinion

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias obtained a favorable decision on behalf of their client in a case centering on the admissibility of expert testimony in legal malpractice actions. In Martin v. Loury, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the exclusion of a plaintiff's legal malpractice expert, holding that the expert's opinions on causation and damages were too speculative to support the malpractice claim. The legal malpractice action arose from an underlying employment dispute involving claims for damages stemming from the breach of an employment agreement. The plaintiff alleged that defense counsel committed malpractice during a second trial by failing to recall the plaintiff as a rebuttal witness after the employer's CEO testified. According to the plaintiff's expert, additional rebuttal testimony would have bolstered the plaintiff's damages claims and led to a more favorable result. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division rejected that theory. The courts found that the expert could not explain how the proposed rebuttal testimony would have altered the outcome of the underlying case or resulted in any additional recoverable damages. Notably, the trial judge in the underlying employment matter had already rejected the CEO's testimony as not credible and had accepted the damages analysis advanced by the plaintiff. The court had also determined that the amount of damages was not genuinely disputed. As a result, the expert's opinion that additional rebuttal testimony would have produced a better outcome was unsupported by the record and based on speculation rather than evidence. The Appellate Division agreed that neither the plaintiff nor the expert could identify any actual damages attributable to the alleged malpractice or demonstrate the required element of proximate causation. The court further upheld the trial court's application of New Jersey's net opinion doctrine, finding that the expert failed to provide the necessary "why and wherefore" supporting his conclusion that the attorney's conduct caused a compensable loss. Because the opinions rested on unquantified possibilities rather than demonstrable facts, they were inadmissible. Key Takeaway for Legal Malpractice Defendants For attorneys and firms defending legal malpractice claims, Martin v. Loury underscores the importance of closely scrutinizing an opponent's expert report on the critical elements of proximate causation and damages. The decision demonstrates that a malpractice claim cannot survive where an expert merely speculates that different litigation tactics might have produced a better result. Instead, the plaintiff must present admissible expert testimony grounded in the record that explains how the alleged attorney error probably changed the outcome of the underlying matter and resulted in measurable damages.

Thought Leadership

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Holds That Public Policy Does Not Prevent Insurance Coverage for Sex Trafficking Claims

On July 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an opinion emphasizing the limited circumstances in which courts may invoke public policy to bar insurance coverage, holding in Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (U.S. Branch) v. RI Settlement Trust that Pennsylvania public policy does not preclude coverage for claims alleging that insureds enabled or profited from human sex trafficking. The decision rejects a line of federal district court decisions predicting otherwise and reinforces that Pennsylvania courts will invoke the public policy doctrine only in the clearest of circumstances. RI Settlement is particularly significant because it arose on certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, giving the Supreme Court the opportunity to resolve an issue on which federal courts had predicted Pennsylvania law differently. RI Settlement arose out of four separate civil complaints in which the underlying plaintiffs alleged that, as minors, they were the victims of human sex trafficking at various hotels in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs claimed that the hotel owners were negligent in failing to stop the sex trafficking from happening at their hotels. After the filing of the lawsuits, the hotel owners sought coverage under their Commercial General Liability policies. The insurers initially defended the hotels under Reservation of Rights letters, though the carriers later filed Declaratory Judgment actions seeking declarations that they did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify. In short, the insurers argued in the alternative that they did not owe any obligation to provide coverage based upon Pennsylvania public policy (because the claims violated the Human Trafficking Law – 18 Pa.C.S. § 3011) and the terms and conditions of the policy. On motions for judgment on the pleadings, the District Court found for the insurers on the basis of public policy: There is no duty to defend or indemnify against actions arising out of an insured's criminal conduct related to the sex trafficking of minors. The Court appreciates that it may make public policy the basis of a judicial decision only in “the clearest of cases.” See Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 589 A.2d 854, 868 (Pa. 2004) (quoting Hall v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 648 A.2d 755, 760 (Pa. 1994)). Yet, the Court strains to imagine a clearer case than the one presented here in which the facts alleged indicate that Policyholders engaged in criminal conduct in violation of Pennsylvania's Human Trafficking Law. The hotel owners appealed the matter to the Third Circuit, which petitioned the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to grant review of two certified questions of law: (1) whether Pennsylvania law had an “overriding public policy” against sex trafficking, such that an insurer’s duty to defend and/or indemnify is abrogated when an insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from such trafficking; and (2) if yes, is that duty abrogated whenever the insured’s alleged conduct would constitute a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Trafficking statute. Importantly, the certified questions did not ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the policies afforded coverage under their terms. Rather, the court was asked only whether Pennsylvania public policy independently barred coverage. As a result, the court assumed for purposes of answering the certified questions that the insurers otherwise owed a duty to defend and addressed only the public policy issue, leaving all policy-based coverage defenses for further proceedings. Because the court concluded that the answer to the first certified question was “no”, it did not reach the second issue. In reaching its determination that Pennsylvania public policy does not prohibit insurance coverage for sex trafficking claims, the court limited the impact of its decision in Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 855 A. 2d 854, 855 (Pa. 2004), which the RI Settlement opinion emphasized as having been an “Opinion Announcing Judgment of the Court” – or a plurality opinion. In Greenfield, the insured homeowner was sued by the estate of his houseguest who overdosed from heroin that he sold to her. The matter wound its way to the Supreme Court, which determined that the insurer did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify based upon Pennsylvania public policy, which criminalized the sale and use of heroin as a Schedule I narcotic. In RI Settlement, the court “decline[d] the invitation” to extend the rationale of the three-justice plurality in Greenfield beyond cases involving Schedule I controlled substances. In so holding, the justices in RI Settlement refused to “divine an overriding public policy pronouncement by the General Assembly by virtue of its enactment of the Human Trafficking Law.” The opinion further states that it is not “within the purview of this Court to rank the magnitude of the public policy underlying the various crimes defined in the Crimes Code. It is sufficient for the work of the courts to know that the General Assembly has identified conduct it deems harmful and dangerous to the maintenance of an orderly society and criminalized it.” While the court declined to declare that Pennsylvania public policy prohibits coverage for sex trafficking claims, the opinion in RI Settlement expressly states that insurers are free to include appropriate exclusionary language for such causes of actions in their policies if they desire to do so. It will certainly be interesting to see whether the insurance industry accepts the court’s invitation, or perhaps whether the Pennsylvania legislature steps in to clarify that sex trafficking claims are indeed of the type or magnitude that they should not be covered by insurance. In any event, we will, of course, continue to monitor this and other insurance coverage issues that arise before courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and throughout our firm’s geographic footprint and around the country.

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. 

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

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.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Court Allows Recklessness and Punitive Damages Claims to Proceed After Work‑Zone Crash

In a case where a defendant filed preliminary objections against allegations of recklessness and punitive damages, the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas denied these preliminary objections. This case stems from a motor vehicle accident, where the defendants car struck the plaintiffs car after the defendant allegedly fell asleep at the wheel, going at a high rate of speed, through a construction work zone. Defendant first objected to the general allegations throughout the plaintiff’s complaint pertaining to “reckless” conduct contending that there were insufficient factual allegations to support the claim of reckless conduct. Defendant next objected to the plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, as punitive damages may only be assessed against a motorist for falling asleep while driving if there is further evidence to prove driver was aware of their drowsiness and risk of falling asleep. Lastly, defendant objected to plaintiffs complaint, claiming it lacked specificity. The court here found that the plaintiff had included in the complaint specific allegations related to the defendant’s alleged recklessness, including allegations regarding speeding in a work zone, almost striking the flagger, falling asleep at the wheel, and striking the plaintiffs vehicle which was stopped. Additionally, the court noted that falling asleep does not come without warning. The court found that these allegations were sufficient to support an allegation of recklessness at the pleadings stage.