.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 2, June 2024

June 1, 2024

RECOGNITION

Stephanie Andrade (Fort Lauderdale, FL) has been selected by The Florida Bar Young Lawyers Division (YLD) as one of the Top “36 Under Thirty-Six” lawyers in the state. The professionalism award was bestowed upon 36 honorees, all under the age of 36, who were vetted through a rigorous review and selection process. According to the YLD, recipients display the highest standards of professionalism and ethics, “their character and integrity remain unwavering, and their dedication to raising the bar in the legal profession is unmatched.” Stephanie is a member of the firm’s Casualty Department where she represents local and national clients in a variety of civil litigation matters. 

Melanie Foreman (Philadelphia, PA) has been elected to the Board of Philadelphia Legal Assistance (PLA). PLA is dedicated to enforcing and protecting the rights of individuals and families by providing accessible, creative and high-quality legal assistance, and working collaboratively for systemic change. Melanie is also a board member of its sister organization, Community Legal Services (CLS), and co-chairs the CLS/PLA Development Committee. 

Congratulations to Michael Turner (Philadelphia, PA) on being inducted as a Fellow into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. The Academy’s purpose is to cultivate the science of jurisprudence, promote reforms in the law, facilitate the administration of justice, and elevate the standards of integrity, honor and courtesy in the legal profession. Membership in the Academy is highly selective and offered only to lawyers who have demonstrated skill and ability in jury trials, trials before the court, and in appellate practice, and to those who have attained the highest level of advocacy.

Congratulations to Kacey Wiedt (Harrisburg, PA) on his selection to the Central Penn Business Journal’s 2024 Power List for Law! The honorees are some of the Central Pennsylvania region’s most significant, influential, and respected leaders in their fields, as chosen by the CPBJ’s editorial leadership team and readers. Learn more here. 
 

PUBLISHED ARTICLES

Kimberly Berman and Gabrielle Wright (both of Fort Lauderdale, FL) authored the article, “Where Are We Now? Punitive Damages Claims in Fla. 2 Years Post-Interlocutory Review Rule Change,” which appeared in the Daily Business Review. Read the article here. 

Dana Gittleman’s and Tim Ventura’s (both of Philadelphia, PA) article “Words Matter: Shielding Against UTPCPL Claims with Subjective Verbiage” was published on March 14, 2024, on PLUSBlog.com. You can read their article here.  

Dana Gittleman also authored the article “Pennsylvania Strengthens Application of One-Year Statute of Repose Under Pennsylvania Home Inspection Law,” appearing in the April 30, 2024, issue of PLUSBlog.com. You can read her article here.

Writing for CLM Magazine, Jessica Wojcik Gordon (Mount Laurel, NJ) and Michelle Leighton, AIC, partner and national claim advocacy and consulting leader at Conner Strong & Buckelew, dive into the rise of artificial intelligence and its impact on workers’ compensation claims handling. Read their article here. 

Estelle McGrath’s (Pittsburgh, PA) article “Lessons from Accountant’s Age Discrimination Suit” was published in the Spring 2024 issue of the Pennsylvania CPA Journal. You can read her article here.

Jack Slimm’s and Jeremy Zacharias’ (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) article “Strategic Defenses to Appellate Malpractice Claims” was published on PLUSBlog.com on April 19, 2024. Read their article here.

Alesia Sulock and Josh J.T. Byrne (both of Philadelphia) published two articles recently. Their article “Risk Management in the Practice of Law” was published on February 27, 2024, on AttorneyProtective.com, which you can read here. On March 21, 2024, their article “Restricting Restrictions: When Attorney Employment Agreements Run Afoul of the Rules of Professional Conduct,” was published in The Legal Intelligencer. You can read this article here.

Ashley Toth (Mount Laurel, NJ) authored “Best Practices for Service Animals in the Workplace,” which appeared in the New Jersey Law Journal’s Employment Law Supplement. You can read the article here. 
 

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

Mohamed Bakry (Philadelphia, PA) was a featured speaker at the 2024 Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel (FDCC) Winter Meeting in St. Petersburg, Florida. Mohamed, who also served as a host of the conference, was joined in a panel to discuss trending issues in leadership. 

Mohamed Bakry and Christina Gonzales (both of Philadelphia) spoke at the 2024 DRI Life, Health, Disability, and ERISA Seminar in Philadelphia. Their panel delved into the intricacies of modern law firms and their clients in a thought-provoking dialogue, unveiling the art of integrating innovative methodologies with well-established practices in order to cultivate diverse, high-performing teams. 

Heather Byrer Carbone and Linda Wagner Farrell (both of Jacksonville, FL) presented the webcast, “Motions to Dismiss and Motions for Summary Final Order,” for the Florida Bar Workers’ Compensation Section.

Buck Buchanan, Jessica Wachstein, Jeremy Zacharias and Zac Ottoson hosted the Rutgers Law Minority Student Program (MSP) for an interviewing skills workshop held in our Philadelphia office. The program featured a panel presentation regarding strategies for maximizing summer clerkship interviews, as well as how to succeed during a summer clerkship program. The event was the second in a series of events the firm is hosting in collaboration with the Rutgers MSP program.

Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) co-presented at the Montgomery Bar Association Women in the Law Committee’s seminar “The Importance of Civility in the Law.” This program provided attendees with the tools and information they need to ensure they are practicing with civility, responsibility, and professionalism while also avoiding ethical issues as they navigate cases with challenging opposing counsel, parties, and others.

Our Securities and Investments Professional Liability Practice Group took center stage at the Independent Broker Dealer Consortium, LLC 2024 Annual Risk Management Conference. Samuel Cohen (Philadelphia, PA), chair of the practice group, joined a panel to discuss protecting customers; Gerard Kowalski (Philadelphia, PA) explained the new expungement rule; and Ryan Friel (Philadelphia, PA) explored the differences between advisors and registered representatives, and the types of claims each face. 

James Cole (Philadelphia, PA) co-presented “This Is Jeopardy!!! Unfair Claims Practices” at the Property & Liability Resource Bureau’s 2024 Claims Conference in Boston. He also presented “Untying Tangle Titles – How Property Insurance Drives Fraud” at the 2024 Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Conference. This annual conference is hosted by the International Association of Special Investigation Units’ Delaware Valley and Greater Pittsburgh Chapters and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Insurance Fraud Prevention Authority.

Jack Delany (Philadelphia, PA) was a featured speaker at the 2024 Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel (FDCC) Winter Meeting in St. Petersburg, Florida. Jack and fellow speakers addressed how challenges, problems, and even disasters at trial can be transformed into opportunities and, ultimately, successful outcomes for clients. 

Elizabeth Ferguson (Jacksonville, FL) co-presented “The Ethics Escape Room: Finding the Way Out of Insurance Dilemmas” at CLM’s Annual Conference in San Francisco. Elizabeth also moderated a panel entitled “Views from the Bench: Complex Construction Litigation – Trials and the Run-Up” at The Florida Bar Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section’s Construction Law Institute in Orlando. She also spoke on “Design Liability” at the Construction Review Course that runs alongside the CLI. 

Robert Fitzgerald (Mount Laurel, NJ) was a panelist for a presentation at the New Jersey Self Insurers’ Association Annual Conference in Atlantic City. Bob joined a group of industry professionals to discuss hot topics in workers’ compensation.

Ray Freudiger (Cincinnati, OH) gave a presentation to members of the Housing and Development Law Institute (HDLI) General Counsel Forum on “The Challenges in Administering Section 8 Project Based Vouchers.” Joining Ray in the presentation was the CEO and General Counsel for Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority. They discussed the jury defense verdict we won in federal court which was upheld by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) presented the annual Appellate Review seminar for the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform.

Kevin Hexstall (Philadelphia, PA) was a featured speaker at the Perrin Conferences asbestos conference. Kevin was part of a panel that presented “The Top Emerging Trends in Asbestos Litigation.” Kevin and panelists addressed filing trends, hot and emerging jurisdictions, and defense-plaintiff coordination. 

Rachel Insalaco (Scranton, PA) presented at the National Business Institute’s CLE, “Pennsylvania Police Liability Claims: A Primer.” Rachel’s presentation addressed qualified, absolute, and state tort immunity implications in cases concerning police departments.

Matthew Keris (Scranton, PA) participated in the following presentations: 

  • At the National Medical Professional Liability Association’s Dental Workshop in Savannah, Georgia, Matt presented “The New Liability Target: Forensic Patient Record Interactions.” 
  • At the American Legal Connections webinar, he presented “Voir Dire of an EMR/Audit Trail Expert.” 
  • At the DRI IRT Meeting in Chicago, IL, he was co-moderator of a roundtable on Social Inflation. 
  • At the Hospital Insurance Forum Annual Meeting in Scottsdale, AZ, he co-presented “Advice for the Efficient Integration of AI Into Medicine.” 
  • At the AALNC (American Association of Legal Nurse Consultants) Annual Forum, he presented “Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare.” 
  • At the American Association of Legal Nurse Consultants annual Forum, held this year in Pittsburgh, PA, he presented “Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: An Introduction.”

Michael Packer (Fort Lauderdale, FL) was a featured speaker at the ALM/Property Casualty 360 Complex Claims & Litigation Forum in Las Vegas. In “Under Oath: What Claims Professionals Need to Know to Conduct an Effective EUO,” Mike focused on the most effective ways to prepare for and efficiently conduct Examinations Under Oath in both the personal lines and commercial lines context. 

Jeffrey Rapattoni (Philadelphia, PA) presented an Ethics session at the Rocky Mountain Association of Special Investigators Annual Insurance Fraud Conference.

Bradley Remick (Philadelphia, PA) and his son, Griffin Remick, presented a product liability update at the Dispute Resolution Institute’s annual Personal Injury Potpourri CLE.

Andrea Rock (Philadelphia, PA) was a panelist for a webinar hosted by the Workers’ Compensation Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association. In “Got Pain? How to Recognize and Assess Pain Including the Identification of Pain Generators in Work Injuries and Novel Treatment Options,” the panelists discussed the issues with pain generators, treatment options and their interaction in workers’ compensation litigation. 

In Season 2 of his podcast with the Professional Liability Underwriting Society, David Shannon (Philadelphia, PA) chatted with guest Stephen Ramey about the cybersecurity landscape for 2024. David and Stephen reflected on the persisting threat of ransomware and citing prevalent groups like LockBit, ALPHV/BlackCat, and Akira. Listen now! https://lnkd.in/eCwUwQdN 

Anthony Williott and Paul Krepps (both of Pittsburgh, PA) participated in a Mock Trial as a part of the American Association of Legal Nurse Consultants annual Forum. Paul participated in an exercise that demonstrated to Legal Nurse Consultants how an expert witness is prepared for deposition and trial by an attorney. Additionally, he served as the “judge” for the mock trial. In the trial, Tony defended the interests of “Hometown Hospital” in a case that involved the failure to timely diagnose sepsis in a patient. The case was designed to highlight the role of the Legal Nurse Consultant in medical malpractice cases.

Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, PA) participated in a panel discussion for Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business to prospective students joining the legal profession. Jeremy spoke about factors to consider in applying to law school, private practice, as well as strategies to effectively maximize law school performance. Jeremy is a recurring speaker at both Rutgers Law and Drexel University on professionals and topics, including ethics, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the business of law.

Lary Zucker, Sara Mazzolla (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) and Alicia Caridi (Tampa, FL) presented a legal roundtable at the Roller Skating Association International’s annual convention. 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 2, June 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

News

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.