.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 4, December 2023

December 1, 2023

RECOGNITION

Two Marshall Dennehey Practice Group Leaders Named “Best of the Bar” by the Philadelphia Business Journal. 
We are pleased to announce that John J. “Jack” Delany, III, Chair of the firm’s Catastrophic Claims Litigation Practice Group, and John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group, have been named 2023 Best of the Bar honorees in the area of Business Litigation by the Philadelphia Business Journal. The annual program recognizes the region’s most impactful lawyers based on their recent achievements, including the legal significance of their successes, the scale of their results, and the business impacts of their accomplishments. 

Marshall Dennehey Named a 2024 “Best Law Firm” In Multiple Practice Areas by Best Lawyers®
We have been named a “2024 Best Law Firm” in multiple practice areas, both nationally and across numerous regions of the country, by Best Lawyers®. Nationally, the firm ranked in the practice areas of Admiralty & Maritime Law; Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law; and Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions - Defendants. Read more here. 

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2023 New York Metro Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
Seven attorneys from our New York City, Westchester County, and Long Island offices have been selected to the 2023 edition of New York Metro Super Lawyers magazine. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Read more here.

Marshall Dennehey Ranks on Law360’s “Ceiling Smashers” List
We ranked #3 on the Law360 Pulse Ceiling Smashers List for law firms with 251-600 attorneys. Firms are ranked based on the number of women attorneys in equity partnerships. According to the report, “The firms that made it onto Law360 Pulse’s Ceiling Smashers list are demonstrating that strides towards gender parity at the upper ranks are possible.” 
 

APPOINTMENTS

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) has been appointed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as the co-chair of the Court’s new Historical Commission. The Commission will develop programming and publications to foster civics education about the importance of the rule of law and judicial independence. 

 

OTHER NEWS

Janice Merrill (Orlando, FL) was quoted in the article, “How to Identify and Defend Against Malicious Lawsuits,” appearing in the October issue of Healthcare Risk Management magazine. You can read the article here.

 

PUBLISHED ARTICLES

On September 15, 2023, The Legal Intelligencer published “You Diligently Protect Your Clients; What About You? Part 2 (The Middle and the End),” written by Josh J.T. Byrne and Alesia S. Sulock (Philadelphia, PA). You can read their article here.

On November 17, 2023, The Legal Intelligencer also published “Probable Cause as a Matter of Law in Dragonetti Cases,” by Josh J.T. Byrne and Alesia S. Sulock (Philadelphia, PA). You can read their article here. 

On November 10, 2023, the New York Law Journal published “Trend Watch: Out-of-Staters Finding the Basis for Personal Jurisdiction,” by Adam Calvert and Brian Ramkissoon (New York, NY). You can their article here.

Dana Gittleman’s (Philadelphia, PA) article “Trying the PL Case: Lessons Learned in the Courtroom,” was published on September 21, 2023, on the PLUS Blog. You can read her article here.

Brad Haas’ (Pittsburgh, PA) article “Unveiling the Power of Usage-Based Insurance in Personal Injury Discovery,” was published in the November 2nd Personal Injury Supplement of The Legal Intelligencer. You can read this article here.

Patricia Monahan (Pittsburgh, PA) authored the article, “Pa. Supreme Court Evaluates Constitutional Parameters of a Jury’s Punitive Damage Award,” appearing in the October 3, 2023, issue of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. Her article discusses the court’s decision in Bert v. Turk, 298 A.3d 44 (Pa. 2023) that addressed whether the appropriate ratio of punitive to compensatory damages in a case with multiple joint tortfeasor defendants should be calculated on a per judgment basis or a per defendant basis, and how the decision applies to statutory bad faith cases. Click here to read.

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) co-authored, with clients, the article, “Reflecting the Talent You Want to Recruit: Building and Achieving a Diverse Team and a Better Business,” appearing in the September 2023 issue of CLM Magazine. The article discusses DEI&B (diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging) and its role in building an inclusive culture within an organization. You can read her article here.  

Estelle McGrath (Pittsburgh, PA) authored the article, “EEOC Mediation: Five Things to Consider Before Participating,” appearing in The Legal Intelligencer’s Employment Law Supplement. The article points to five things to discuss with your client ahead of time so they can make an informed decision about whether or not to participate in an EEOC mediation. You can read the article here.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) authored the article, “Beware of the Language Used in Your Settlement Agreements: Medicare is Watching,” appearing in The Legal Intelligencer’s October 10, 2023, Workers’ Compensation Supplement. The article discusses the pivotal role of settlement agreements in workers’ compensation litigation, and the importance of including the appropriate language in such agreements when the claimant is a Medicare beneficiary. You can read his article here.  

 

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

Mohamed Bakry (Philadelphia, PA) joined a panel at the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel Corporate Counsel Symposium in Philadelphia to discuss “Lessons from the Varsity Blues Scandal.” This panel discussed why every corporate counsel must be prepared to defend the enterprise against claims of civil and potentially criminal liability arising from honest services fraud, bribery, conspiracy, and other claims, due to the actions of rogue employees. 

Josh J.T. Byrne and Alesia S. Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) were featured speakers at the Professional Liability Defense Federation (PLDF) annual meeting in Denver. They were part of a panel titled “Defending and Avoiding Disciplinary Complaints.”

Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) joined a Pennsylvania Bar Institute panel to present a CLE on ethical use of social media for attorneys.

James Cole (Philadelphia, PA) presented “Risky Business: New Trends in Insurance Fraud,” at CLM’s Fraud Focus Conference in New York City.

Christopher Conrad (Harrisburg, OA) co-presented “Extended School Year – It’s Not Summer School,” at the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s Exceptional Children Conference. The presentation addressed the scope of available Extended School Year services for special needs students, determining eligibility, and the appropriateness of services. The presentation also included a discussion of relevant and recent case law and hearing officer decisions, as well as tips for how to litigate expedited Extended School Year due process hearings.

Angela DeMary (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented “Assessing the Injury and Case,” at the National Business Institute’s New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Fundamentals webinar.

Michael Detweiler (King of Prussia, PA) participated was a webinar panelist for “Travel Advisors E&O Insurance: Lessons in Liability,” hosted by Travel Professional News. The webinar discussed what E&O insurance actually safeguards you against and why most organizations and host agencies require or strongly suggest travel advisors carry coverage. The program also walked through insurance policy language and coverage terms related to E&O insurance and the importance of protecting yourself or your agency. Real-life case studies illustrated the common allegations made against travel professionals and what you can do to help safeguard yourself against client demands and lawsuits. 

Melisa Dziak (Scranton, PA) joined a “Claims Hot Topics Roundtable” on September 21st at the Medical Professional Liability Association’s Claims and Risk Management/Patient Safety Workshop. With more than 10 years of medical malpractice defense and health care liability experience, Melissa provided critical information for claims, risk, and clinical professionals involved in managing medical professional liability claims. 

Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) presented “Avoiding Legal Malpractice,” to members of the Beaver County Bar Association. Scott also presented “Ethics Issues in Auto Law,” at the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s Auto Law Update webinar.

Elizabeth Ferguson (Jacksonville, FL) participated in AMBest’s webinar “How Insurers Are Controlling Expert Costs in Construction Defect Claims.” In this one-hour webinar, claims professionals examined best practices for engaging expert testimony, with a special focus on how that process works in handling and litigating construction defect claims. You can watch here.

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) was a keynote speaker at an event honoring new Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Debra Todd, the first woman to serve in that role. All Supreme Court justices and members of Pennsylvania’s other two appellate courts were in attendance. John also presented a 90-minute CLE for the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, a consortium of insurers, corporations, and other defense-oriented groups. The title of the CLE was “The Transformation of Pennsylvania Law: 2016-2023,” and focused on the expansion of civil liability in Pennsylvania in recent years. Finally, John spoke at a symposium honoring the 125th anniversary of the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The symposium focused on different aspects of the Court’s work. John focused on civil litigation. The event was broadcast on Pennsylvania Cable Network. 

Elias Hassinger (Philadelphia, PA) presented at the Philadelphia Bar Association’s 2023 Bench-Bar & Annual Conference in Atlantic City. In the session “Proper Identification of Pain Generators in Work Injuries/Personal Injuries and Novel Treatment Options,” Eli joined a panel discussion on the proper identification of pain generators focused on identifying disc herniations and radiculopathy; discogenic pain and annular tears; vertebrogenic pain; injured joints in the spine; and using platelet rich plasma for tendon/ligament injuries. The panelists also addressed novel treatment options and how they may affect a workers’ compensation claim.

Jahlee Hatchett (Philadelphia, PA) moderated “Productivity Architects: Unlocking Potential and Redefining Success in the Hybrid Era,” at the Philadelphia Bar Association’s 2023 Bench-Bar & Annual Conference.

Ryan Hauck (Pittsburgh, PA) spoke at the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Workers’ Compensation Fall Section Meeting in Hershey, Pennsylvania. He was a panelist on the topic of “Specific Loss/Disfigurement.”

Matthew Keris (Scranton, PA) spoke at the Forum on Obstetric Malpractice Claims in Philadelphia. Matt joined a panel to discuss “Evaluating the Use of AI in Obstetric Diagnostics: Understanding Enhanced Capability and Inherent Risks.”

Mark Kozlowski (Scranton, PA) presented “Employment Law Basics - 2023 Year in Review: What’s New, What’s Changed, and What Do I Need to Know?” to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), NEPA Chapter.

A.C. Nash and Ryan Burns (Fort Lauderdale, FL) presented “Legislative Update: New Florida Tort Reform Changes Under HB 837” at the RIMS Tampa Bay Chapter meeting in St. Petersburg. 

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) and Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) co-presented “Getting Caught with Your Hand in the Proverbial Cookie Jar,” at this year’s ClaimsXChange in Philadelphia. In this presentation, the panel discussed the best strategies for investigating, uncovering, and deterring fraudulent acts while exploring methods to recover monies paid out to fraudulent actors. They also examined how fraud impacts the claim value and how to counteract its debilitating effects. 

Victoria Scanlon and Melissa Dziak (Scranton, PA) presented to the Physician Assistant Program at Marywood University on “Mitigating Physician Assistant Legal Liability.”

Kacey Wiedt (Harrisburg, PA) and Daniel Deitrick (Pittsburgh, PA) presented “How the Lorino and Neves Decisions Have Impacted the Defense of Workers’ Compensation Cases,” at the CCAP Defense Counsel Meeting.

Courtney Schulnick (Philadelphia, PA) was part of a panel for the Philadelphia Law Department’s annual CLE program held at the Pennsylvania Convention Center. During this two-hour CLE, Courtney was joined by Alison Lintal, Esq, visiting Assistant Professor of Law and Director of the Externship Program at Penn State University Dickinson Law School and Dena Lefkowitz, Esq., author, business, and career coach for lawyers. The panel discussed Emotional Intelligence (EI) and how it can help attorneys to handle interpersonal relations judiciously and empathetically. Courtney focused on mindfulness practices that can help us step out of reactivity and choose how to most skillfully respond, whether it’s trying a case in court, dealing with a difficult adversary, serving the needs of our clients, working together with colleagues, or caring for a loved one.

David Shannon (Philadelphia, PA) hosted the third episode of his PLUS podcast, “Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2023.” David was joined by Brendan McGann of Arete to discuss mid-year data breach trends. From increased ransom demands and paying for data deletion, to an uptick in breaches within the professional services industry, David and Brendan analyzed what’s happened so far in 2023 – and trends they anticipate will lead us into 2024. Click here to listen. 

Jack Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented with Frank Ciuffani P.J.Chancery (ret.) at the New Jersey State Bar Association’s NJICLE 2023 Business Litigation Seminar on November 1. Their topic, “NJ Business Rule and Its Application to Lost Profits,” explored the new rule and whether a new business can ever prove lost profits damages with reasonable certainty.

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented a webinar entitled “Strategic Approaches to Handling Lost Profit Claims Under New Jersey’s New Business Rule.” Jack and Jeremy presented on the current New Jersey law on the New Business Rule after the Supreme Court’s decision in Schwartz v. Menas, a case Jack and Jeremy have been handling on behalf of their clients, a well-known law firm in New Jersey handling real estate and land use matters. Jack and Jeremy went through certain jurisdictional approaches to the New Business Rule, as well as New Jersey’s current rule after the Supreme Court decision in Schwartz v. Menas, 279 A.3d 436 (N.J. 2022). This presentation was attended by various claims professionals and underwriters, and crosses multi-dimensional practices between professional liability and casualty.

Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented at the New Jersey ICLE’s “Commercial Real Estate: From Handshake to Closing Seminar.” Jeremy’s topic pertained to ethical considerations in handling commercial real estate transactions. He discussed the implications of the Rules of Professional Conduct on certain real estate transactions, including multiple representations, dealing with unrepresented parties, and practical pointers when facing a motion to disqualify when an attorney handles multiple representations in a commercial real estate deal. This presentation was well attended by members of the Bar, and and Jeremy discussed the importance of assessing the Rules of Professional Conduct in everyday practice.


 

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 4, December 2023, 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. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.