.

Timothy G. Ventura

Chair, Philadelphia Professional Liability Practice Group

Portrait of Timothy G. Ventura

Tim is Chair of the Philadelphia Professional Liability Practice Group and the Insurance Agents and Brokers Liability Group. He focuses his practice on the defense of errors and omissions claims brought against insurance agents and brokers of all sizes. He also oversees and manages the day-to-day operations of a broad range of professional liability attorneys.  

While Tim’s practice is focused on defending insurance agents and brokers, he also frequently defends attorneys, corporate directors and officers, and a variety of real estate professionals, including title agents, appraisers, brokers, home inspectors and lenders in E&O and malpractice claims brought against them. He has successfully tried multiple cases as first chair counsel resulting in jury trial defense verdicts and tried dozens of arbitrations in Pennsylvania.  Tim also has experience defending product liability matters.

In addition to his civil litigation practice, Tim is a frequent speaker and author of publications on various topics regarding Insurance Agent/Broker Errors & Omissions, for clients, brokers, industry trade associations and professional liability insurers.

In 2003, Tim graduated from Boston College with a Bachelor of Arts in political science.  During the fall semester of his junior year at BC, he clerked for Senator John Kerry (D-MA).  Tim then attended Temple University Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia, PA, where he earned his juris doctor in 2006.  He achieved various honors while at Temple Law School, including: Temple University Law Faculty Scholarship recipient; Outstanding Oral Advocacy in Trial Advocacy; and Distinguished Classroom Performance – Civil Procedure.  He was also a staff member of the Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review.

While attending Temple Law, Tim also worked part-time as a law clerk with Liberty Mutual Insurance Group in the Philadelphia Legal Department.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 2006)
    • Boston College (B.A., 2003)
    • New Jersey, 2006
    • Pennsylvania, 2006
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • American Bar Association
    • Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS)
    • The Seven-Ten Split Mock Trial: Navigating Agent Errors & Omissions, The Annual Professional Insurance Agents (PIA) Conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey, June 2, 2024
    • Pandemic Coverage Litigation Update / Insurance Broker Best Practices, Client Webinar, September 2022
    • The Aftermath of the Pandemic For Carriers and Agents, Client Webinar, July 2021
    • Pandemic Coverage Litigation Update - Agent E&O Wars to Come, Client Seminar, March 2021 
    • COVID 19 and Insurance Agent E&O, Best Practices, IA&B webinar, May 2020
    • Insurance Agent / Broker E&O Litigation Trends & Best Practices during COVID Crisis, Client Webinar, April 2020 
    • Insurance Agent / Broker E&O Litigation Trends & Best Practices, Client Seminar, April 2019
    • Insurance Agent / Broker E&O – Claims Prevention and Defense in 2018 and Beyond, Client webinar, February 2018
    • Mediation and Pre-Suit Claims Handling – Best Practices, Client Seminar, August 2016
    • Insurance Agent E&O Claims Prevention and Defense – The Road Ahead in 2016, Client Seminar, March 2016
    • Developments and Emerging Trends in the Legal and Insurance Areas of Cybersecurity, Client Seminar, February 2016
    • CPCU Society Webinar: Agent & Broker E&O - A New Lens for Viewing Exposures, September 18, 2015
    • Obtained a summary judgment dismissal in a Philadelphia Commerce Court commercial litigation matter. The case involved claims of unfair competition and tortious interference brought by one adult day care center against our client, a competing facility. The allegations centered on purported violations of regulations issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Aging and the Office of Long Term Living. The plaintiff’s final demand was $2 million, and no settlement offers were made before the trial court granted summary judgment.  
    • Obtained dismissal in Federal Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, for insurance broker client in a case involving liability/commercial insurance coverage claims related to lost business income as a result of government mandated closures triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.
    • Obtained summary judgment in Philadelphia County for our attorney/law firm client, dismissing a complex legal malpractice case involving claims of professional negligence and fraud that arose from an underlying personal injury litigation that concluded with a $700,000 settlement.  In the malpractice action, which involved various coverage and standard of care issues, Plaintiff sought approximately $2 million in damages.  Following discovery, the court granted our motion dismissing both the individual attorneys and firm clients with prejudice. For further details click here.
    • Obtained dismissal with prejudice of large automobile manufacturer client following motion oral argument. This case involved product liability claims regarding airbag deployment and alleged personal injuries caused by product defect.  No settlement offers made before suit was dismissed against client manufacturer. 
    • Defended insurance agency in Philadelphia Commerce Court action involving claims of professional negligence arising from the agency’s procurement of commercial insurance coverage for a hotel franchise owner.  Following a fire loss resulting in a completely rebuilt hotel property in Philadelphia, plaintiffs alleged their long-time insurance agency failed to obtain more comprehensive coverage available, including insufficient business interruption and ordinance or law coverage.  Plaintiffs also asserted breach of contract/bad faith claims against the insurer co-defendant.  With case exposure exceeding $8.5 million, following discovery and before trial, settled suit at mediation on behalf of insurance agency client with payment in the range of defense costs, a fraction of the total exposure and settlement demand.
    • Obtained jury trial defense verdict on behalf of large automobile manufacturer/distributor in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania following four-day trial involving multiple party, fact witness and experts’ testimony.
    • Obtained jury trial defense verdict on behalf of product manufacturer in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania following three-day trial involving party, witness and multiple experts' testimony.
    • Obtained non-suit judgment for insurance broker at arbitration in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
    • Obtained defense verdict for large automobile manufacturer at arbitration in Philadelphia County in a product liability suit involving fire cause and origin issues, with live expert testimony for both parties.
    • Obtained Non-Pros judgment in favor of wholesale insurance broker client in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  After serving plaintiff's counsel with letters threatening sanctions and fees under Pa.R.C.P. 1023.1, and the prospect of a retaliatory suit against plaintiff's counsel for wrongful use of civil proceedings, because plaintiff's claims against the wholesale insurance broker lacked probable cause, plaintiff's counsel promptly withdrew representation and the suit languished resulting in a Non Pros judgment with no indemnity paid.
    • Obtained favorable outcome for large construction company client at private binding arbitration in a personal injury suit with a settlement demand of $600,000.  Following successful defense at arbitration, with multiple party and witness testimony and experts, the award resulted in client paying less than cost of trial defense.
    • Assisted first chair counsel in successful jury trial in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.  Breach of contract/indemnity action representing construction manager against a sub-contractor, resulting in jury verdict recovery in excess of $750,000 on behalf of client.  Drafted successful pre-trial and post-trial motions, fact and expert witness coordination, with trial conference participation.
    • Obtained voluntary suit dismissal of plaintiff in legal malpractice suit with $2 million initial settlement demand after drafting successful Motion for Summary Judgment and procuring multiple defense expert reports on behalf of law firm and individual attorney clients.  Dispositive Motion established plaintiff's failure to prove her underlying case within the case and causation in professional negligence action, including the use of digital metadata analysis and litigation attorney expert opinion.
    • Defending for over ten years the manufacturer, designer and distributor of automobiles, motorcycles and varied power equipment in catastrophic injury, product liability and warranty actions.
    • Defending for over 8 years multiple wholesale and retail auto finance companies in commercial litigation and lender liability suits involving claims of fraud, breach of contract, professional negligence and unfair trade practices.

Results

Philadelphia Commerce Court Grants Summary Judgment, Dismissing $2M Unfair‑Competition and Tortious‑Interference Claims

We obtained summary judgment dismissal, following Oral Argument, in a Philadelphia Commerce Court commercial litigation matter involving allegations of unfair competition and tortious inference with contract and business relationships, brought by one adult day care center against our client, a competing adult day care facility.  The plaintiff’s suit stemmed from alleged violation of regulations set forth by the Pennsylvania Department of Aging and its Office of Long-Term Living. The plaintiff’s final demand was $2 million, and no settlement offers were made before the trial court granted summary judgment.

Montgomery County Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Insurance Broker

We obtained dismissal of our insurance broker client on Motion for Summary Judgment in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, on the basis of no duty breached, and lack of causation. Claimants asserted a professional negligence theory for allegedly allowing a commercial insurance policy to lapse, failing to notify the policyholder claimant of the lapse or cancellation, and allowing a subsequent gap in coverage to exist after the policy cancelled, when an underlying loss occurred. However, after completed discovery depositions and expert discovery, we successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing the policy cancelled because of the policyholder’s own failure to comply with premium audit requirements, rather than any liability or breach of standard of care by the insurance broker.

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Defending the Professionals Who Power the Insurance Industry

March 1, 2026

The Insurance Agents and Brokers Defense Practice Group at Marshall Dennehey is nationally recognized for its skillful representation of insurance professionals in complex civil litigation. With decades of collective experience, our attorneys provide sophisticated, results-driven defense to insurance agents, brokers, managing general agents, and other intermediaries facing professional liability claims. We understand the intricate regulatory frameworks, contractual obligations, and industry standards that govern the insurance marketplace, allowing us to craft defenses that reflect both legal prowess and practical business insight. Our team regularly defends clients in claims alleging negligence, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, failure to procure coverage, and errors in policy placement or renewal. We also handle disputes arising from alleged bad faith, premium miscalculations, claims denial, and compliance violations. Whether the matter involves a single claim or a multi-jurisdictional class action, our attorneys have the depth of knowledge and trial experience necessary to protect our clients’ reputations and minimize their exposure. Beyond litigation, our practice group emphasizes proactive risk management and claim prevention. We partner with insurance agencies and brokerages to conduct internal audits, develop best practices, and deliver training on evolving industry risks, emerging coverage issues, and regulatory developments. This preventative approach reflects our broader commitment to supporting our clients as trusted advisors, not just defenders, throughout the life of their businesses. At Marshall Dennehey we understand that every claim against an insurance professional carries significant professional and reputational consequences. Our clients rely on us for strategic, efficient, and discreet representation that aligns with their long-term business goals. By combining deep industry knowledge with vigorous advocacy and an unwavering commitment to service, our Insurance Agents and Brokers Defense Practice Group stands at the forefront of protecting the professionals who keep the insurance industry moving. Tim is Chair of the Professional Liability Practice Group, and he can be reached at TGVentura@MDWCG.com.

PLUS Blog

Pennsylvania Superior Court Rejects Breach of Oral Contract Claim Against Insurance Agent

January 26, 2026

While the majority of claims against insurance agents and brokers sound in tort, creative attorneys attempting to combat a two-year statute of limitations on tort claims or the affirmative defense of contributory negligence, may also plead a breach of oral contract claim. In Pennsylvania, contract claims have a four-year statute of limitations and are not barred by the doctrine of contributory negligence. Insureds’ counsel therefore have an incentive to try to plead tort and contract claims, both procedurally and substantively.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

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

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

Thought Leadership

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

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

Thought Leadership

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

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

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict.