.

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

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. 

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.