.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Office

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022

December 1, 2022

by Butler Buchanan, III

As the managing attorney of the Philadelphia office of Marshall Dennehey, I am happy to have this opportunity to tell you about our corporate headquarters office.

Housing the largest contingent of lawyers in the firm, the attorneys in our Philadelphia office protect the interests of our clients in all four of the firm’s departments—Casualty, Professional Liability, Health Care Liability and Workers’ Compensation. The three members of our firm’s Executive Committee—G. Mark Thompson (CEO and President), Howard P. Dwoskin (Chairman of the Board of Directors and Treasurer) and Craig S. Hudson (Senior Vice President and Assistant Treasurer)—maintain offices in Philadelphia.

In addition to our attorneys, many of the backroom operations of the firm are handled by personnel in the Philadelphia office, and all non-lawyer administrative directors are based here including Colleen Bannon, our Chief Operating Officer. Colleen has a storied history with the firm (more than 40 years!), and before her promotion to COO, she was a practicing shareholder and also held the positions of Director of Human Resources and Director of Litigation Support. With oversight for our 19 offices across seven states, she is in frequent consultation with members of the Executive Committee and all of our office managing attorneys.

Frank Stransky, Chief Financial Officer, is housed in Philadelphia, along with Pattie Day, Director of Billing and Accounting. Between the two of them, all issues concerning billing, accounting and finance are managed firmwide.

Nané Pr’Out, Director of Information Technology, is also housed in the Philadelphia office. Nané manages a team of over 40 IT professionals who provide support for all operations of the firm. From time to time, some attorneys questioned whether we needed such a large IT department. When COVID–19 hit in March of 2020, thanks to the IT Department, we were able to have over 1,100 employees connected and working from home in less than one week. After that, those same attorneys were saying, “I am so happy that we have such a big IT Department.” Our IT team is first rate and does all that it can do to facilitate the practice of law at Marshall Dennehey.

Karen Williams is Marshall Dennehey’s Director of Human Resources. She and her team provide all manner of support in reference to a myriad of human resources issues, in addition to managing the firm’s comprehensive benefit program. They also facilitate our annual United Way giving campaign.

Joseph Goldshear and Jennifer Becker currently serve as Co-Directors of Marketing & Business Development at the firm. Joe has been in that role for 14 years and will be stepping down at year-end 2022, when Jennifer will take over the role in full. We are fortunate that Joe will remain with the firm as a Senior Advisor, to provide assistance to Jennifer as she progresses through her first full year as director. Backed by a creative and impressive group of marketing and public relations professionals, the marketing team works hard to promote the good works of our individual attorneys and the firm as a whole.

Lisa Ricchezza is our Director of Paralegal Services with oversight for our approximately 130 paralegals spread throughout our 19 offices. Lisa travels to the various offices and provides training, direction, assistance and guidance to our paralegal team. Our paralegals are an integral part of Marshall Dennehey and provide first-rate, cost-effective representation on behalf of our clients.

Christopher Hansen is the firm’s Director of E-Discovery and Litigation Support. In the cyber world, the management of documents in a litigation setting can be a massive undertaking. Getting these documents into a format in which they can be reviewed, and also arranging for relevant documents to be presented at trial, is often beyond the technical capabilities of our lawyers. Fortunately, Chris and his team provide ample guidance in that regard.

Lawrence Schempp is our Director of Professional Development. Larry arranges a number of associate training events across the firm each year that provide advice and direction on how to succeed in protecting our clients’ interests. Larry also orchestrates an in-house mock trial academy each summer where eight senior associates are selected to try a case in the mock trial courtroom of our Philadelphia office. Our summer law clerks serve as the jury, and seasoned trial lawyers at the firm serve as faculty. Participants are critiqued in the areas of opening statements, direct and cross-examination, and closing arguments. While the participants find the trial to be somewhat nerve-racking, they always express gratitude for the learning process and experience. Lastly, Larry oversees the provision of CLE credits in each of the seven states where the firm maintains offices. The content of the CLEs is wholly relevant to civil defense litigation practitioners.

Sandy Caiazzo is Marshall Dennehey’s Director of Administrative Services. Sandy manages all administrative assistants in the firm as well as their supervisors and managers. She also serves as the firm’s Lateral Integration Coordinator. Like COO Colleen Bannon, and many other employees of the firm, Sandy has never worked any place other than Marshall Dennehey. She joined the firm out of high school and has been with us for over 40 years.

Jay Rothman is General Counsel to the firm and is assisted in that role by Shane Haselbarth. Both Jay and Shane have only worked at Marshall Dennehey. Prior to being named General Counsel, Jay had a robust practice in the Professional Liability Department. Shane is an accomplished member of our firm’s Appellate Advocacy Practice Group and maintains that work while assisting Jay on the many issues that confront the firm. We are lucky to have two such astute lawyers to protect the firm.

Now that I have highlighted several firm leaders housed in the Philadelphia office, I want to highlight a few Philadelphia office attorneys.

John Hare is a member of the firm’s Board of Directors and Chair of our Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group. John has litigated more than 500 appeals in the state and federal appellate courts and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. John formerly served as Chair of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee. He has edited and co-authored two books on Pennsylvania appellate courts. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Life and Law in the Commonwealth, 1684-2017 was published by the Pennsylvania State University Press in 2018, and Keystone of Justice: The Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1895-1995 was published by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 2000.

Mohamed Bakry is a young shareholder at Marshall Dennehey. An active member of the volunteer community, Mohamed serves as Chair of the Board of Justice for Our Neighbors of the Delaware Valley, an immigration legal service nonprofit organization. He is also the Second Vice President of Board of Directors of The Lawyers’ Club of Philadelphia, a social and educational organization working to promote comradery among members of the bench and the bar in the Philadelphia area. Mohamed is passionate about, and dedicated to, the principles of diversity and inclusion, and he currently serves on Marshall Dennehey’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Committee. He is also a member of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, an association of vetted and premier defense and corporate counsel and industry executives dedicated to leading the profession by advancing the principles of integrity, professionalism and civil justice.

Melanie Foreman, associate in the Casualty Department, is heavily involved in the Philadelphia legal community. She is a board member of Community Legal Services of Philadelphia (CLS) and co-chairs its Leadership Council and Board Development Committee. Melanie is the founder and Chair of Justice Rising, a young professionals’ organization associated with CLS that is dedicated to access to justice for all. She is also a member of the Board of Governors of the Philadelphia Bar Association and sits on the association’s Large Firm Associates Committee. Finally, Melanie was recently invited to join the Board of Trustees of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation, which is the charitable arm of the Philadelphia Bar Association.

We are proud of John, Mohamed and Melanie, and the many other attorneys in our Philadelphia office and elsewhere who are doing incredible things that are law-related, but also outside of the practice of law at the firm.

Lastly, the Philadelphia office, and our neighboring offices throughout the region, reached a significant milestone in 2022. For the 10th consecutive year, Marshall Dennehey was selected one of the Philadelphia region’s “Best Places to Work” by the Philadelphia Business Journal. The award recognizes the firm’s achievements in creating a positive work environment that attracts and retains employees through a combination of benefits, working conditions and company culture. We are proud of this recognition, as expressed by our President & CEO, G. Mark Thompson: “Ten years is a long time to be recognized for anything and the fact that our employees remain engaged and happy makes us think we must be doing something right. A lot has happened in the past decade, but through it all we have emerged stronger together. I could not be prouder of our firm and all of our employees, and we will continue to do whatever we can to continue to improve our working environment so that all of our employees have the opportunity to succeed.”

I hope that this overview provides you with some idea of the scope of the operation in the Philadelphia office that I am so privileged to participate in managing. I also hope that each of you reading this has a wonderful and peaceful Holiday Season and I wish you a happy and healthy 2023.

*Buck is the managing attorney of our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, office. He can be reached at 215.575.2661 and BBBuchanan@mdwcg.com.

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022, 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. © 2022 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

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.