.

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
    • U.S. District Court Middle 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

PLUS Blog

Insurance Broker Best Practices to Reduce AI-Related E&O Risk

August 25, 2026

Insurance agencies and brokerages, like most businesses, are increasingly using artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and Gemini, in their daily operations. AI can provide significant advantages, including greater efficiency, enhanced productivity, and cost savings. For example, brokers may use AI to generate policy comparisons and proposals, accelerating the quoting process. However, these benefits come with risks. AI-generated information may be inaccurate, leading to improper advice, coverage misrepresentations, or binding coverage that violates underwriting guidelines. Overreliance on AI may also increase exposure to errors and omissions (E&O) claims and litigation. Insurance agencies can reduce AI-related risks by following these five best practices: 1. Require Licensed Producer Oversight AI can improve efficiency, but it does not replace the professional judgment or responsibility of a licensed producer. Treat AI-generated content as a preliminary draft that may contain errors. Before any quote, proposal, coverage summary, or policy comparison is provided to a client, a qualified individual should independently verify all material information, including coverage terms, limits, deductibles, exclusions and endorsements, against the applicable policy forms and source documents. 2. Establish a Formal AI Policy Agencies should adopt a written AI policy that defines: Approved AI tools; Information that may or may not be entered into AI platforms; AI outputs requiring licensed producer review; Tasks AI may assist with or perform autonomously, if any; and Permitted and prohibited uses. Approved uses may include document summarization and administrative support. Prohibited uses should include independently binding coverage, modifying limits, providing coverage advice, or communicating coverage determinations without human review. The policy should be distributed to all employees, supported by training, and reinforced through written acknowledgment of compliance. 3. Manage Third-Party AI and Data Security Risks Confidential client information, such as loss runs, financial records, proprietary information, or other sensitive data, should not be entered into unapproved public AI platforms. Agencies should also review contracts with AI vendors to ensure they adequately address confidentiality, cybersecurity controls, data retention, indemnification, insurance requirements, and limitations of liability. 4. Document AI Usage As with other client communications and insurance placement decisions, agencies should maintain records of AI-related activity. Documentation should reflect the client’s requests, information available to the producer, AI-generated output, any modifications or verification performed by agency personnel, communications with the client, and the coverage ultimately procured. Such records may provide valuable evidence in defending a future E&O claim. 5. Review Insurance Coverage Agencies should review their own E&O policies to determine whether any exclusions, limitations, or endorsements affect coverage for AI-related activities.  Likewise, agencies should be aware of any AI-related coverage restrictions contained in policies they recommend or place for clients. Conclusion AI is a valuable tool that can help insurance agents and brokers improve efficiency and service. However, it should supplement rather than replace the oversight, expertise, and professional judgment of a licensed producer. This article was originally published on PLUS Blog, the blog of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society, on August 20, 2026. All rights reserved. Further duplication without prior permission is prohibited. 

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.

Firm Highlights

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

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Recreational Immunity for County Under Landowners' Liability Act

In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc. v. Middlesex County Parks Department, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of Middlesex County Parks Department, holding that the county was immune from liability under New Jersey's Landowners' Liability Act (LLA), notwithstanding its failure to plead the immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Complaint. The case arose from injuries sustained by fourteen-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Kuzma, while playing basketball at Spring Lake Park in South Plainfield on August 23, 2019. The plaintiff observed a crack in the basketball court before beginning to play but did not consider it dangerous. During the game, his foot became caught in the crack, causing him to fall and suffer a significant ankle injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted in ongoing physical limitations and deprived him of the opportunity to play collegiate basketball. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendants negligently maintained the basketball court. Although the county did not assert LLA immunity as an affirmative defense in its answers, it later moved for summary judgment on that basis. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the county had waived the defense by failing to plead it. The county maintained that the plaintiff had received sufficient notice of its intent to rely on the LLA through discovery and therefore suffered no unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, concluding that the county should be permitted to invoke statutory immunity notwithstanding its failure to formally plead the defense. Relying heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court's guidance in Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen, holding a county park was subject to the immunity of the LLA, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the county's failure to plead LLA immunity did not preclude reliance on the defense under the circumstances presented. The court determined that the plaintiff had received adequate notice of the immunity claim through discovery and that permitting the defense furthered the public-policy objectives embodied in the LLA. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's injury and the general societal interest in maintaining parks and recreational facilities in a safe condition. However, the court emphasized that both the legislature and the New Jersey Supreme Court have expressed a clear policy choice to limit liability for public and private landowners who make recreational property available for public use. The decision reinforces the courts' continuing adherence to the Landowners' Liability Act and the principle that recreational lands and facilities should be broadly protected from liability exposure, even in cases involving significant personal injuries.

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.