.

Jeffrey J. Chomko

Shareholder

JJChomko@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Jeffrey J. Chomko

As a shareholder in the firm's Professional Liability Department, Jeffrey concentrates a significant portion of his practice in defending errors and omissions claims directed to insurance agents and brokers, investment professionals, real estate professionals, appraisers and home inspectors in the State and Federal Courts of Pennsylvania. He also represents these professionals before state securities and insurance commissions, real estate commissions, and other regulatory forums, including the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), and Commonwealth Regulatory Agencies.  These matters involve licensure issues, administrative and regulatory litigation, and responding and defending against complaints and inquiries.

Jeffrey also defends funeral industry professionals, including funeral directors and cemeteries. Jeffrey has litigated bench and jury trials involving complex insurance, securities, commercial, real estate and burial disputes. He has represented insurance agents, securities brokers, real estate agents, title agents, home inspectors, banks, condominium boards, property management companies, and other commercial entities.  He also has a strong background defending both general liability and casualty matters from the most basic to the most complex. 

Jeffrey practices in both the state and federal courts of Pennsylvania, regularly representing clients in Pennsylvania State Courts, and the Federal District Court for the Eastern and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania. Jeffrey has entered PRO HAC VICE in multiple lawsuits in other jurisdictions, including Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, Delaware, and Virginia. He has a strong command of state and federal procedural rules and is well versed in the intricacies of local, state, and federal practice. In addition to litigating matters, he often utilizes the mediation and arbitration process to resolve complex disputes, including AAA Arbitration and through private mediators.

Throughout his career, Jeffrey has successfully litigated/handled hundreds of civil matters resulting in many defense verdicts, dismissals, or favorable settlements in both judicial and non-judicial forums. As a former registered representative, his understanding of the workings of the financial services industry and markets, as well as his familiarity with all types of insurance and investment products, has enabled him to efficiently and effectively handle complex insurance and securities disputes. His knowledge of residential and commercial real estate and the burial industry also allows him to successfully litigate these matters.
 
A graduate of Villanova University and Boston College Law School, he frequently presents to clients and industry groups on insurance and real estate related issues. His most recent presentation was "Best Practices for Insurance Agents and Brokers."

 

    • Boston College Law School (J.D., 1988)
    • Villanova University (B.A., 1984)
    • Pennsylvania, 1988
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2001
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2001
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Successfully defended insurance agent in a Maryland Insurance Department investigation involving a customer complaint concerning the sale of life insurance policies. The complaint alleged the agent oversold life insurance to a couple who claimed the amount of insurance was excessive, unsuitable and unnecessary. Jeffrey was able to demonstrate to the regulators that the agent did a thorough job in explaining the need and purpose for the coverage, and that the couple could afford the coverage, and actually drove the decision to purchase the policies. They only changed their mind later, after the client was criticized by a subsequent insurance agent. Jeffrey also shut down a Certified Financial Planner Board investigation involving the same matter. 
    • Successfully gained dismissal of an action against an insurance agent in Wyoming County Pennsylvania on a matter involving the sale by an agent of a number of mutual funds (IRA retirement funds). In this case, the plaintiff contended the mutual funds were excessive and unsuitable. Jeffrey convinced the trial court judge that plaintiff’s counsel’s lack of activity for several years on the case, and his failure to respond to long-outstanding discovery, warranted a full dismissal of the lawsuit.
    • Defense verdict obtained on behalf of a registered investment advisor and broker-dealer following a four day jury trial in Schuylkill County.  The registered investment advisor and broker dealer were sued by their former client for investment losses.  The Plaintiff was a paraplegic whose wealth was obtained through a jury verdict and settlements related to his injuries.  The case was defended on the basis that the registered investment advisor met the standard of care and did not breach any duties owed to the Plaintiff, as well as the fact that the Plaintiff was net profitable in his investments.  The Plaintiff sought to "cherry pick" losing investments from an overall profitable portfolio.  
    • Represented and obtained dismissal of an insurance agent in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in a matter involving an insurance policy the agent had sold to a professional hockey player. When the player's widow brought a claim for a breach of the standard of care,  Jeffrey successfully argued that no duty was owed or breached.
    • Obtained summary judgment in a binding arbitration on behalf of an insurance agent against a well-known Philadelphia restauranteur in a dispute involving the assessment of a co-insurance penalty. Succesfully argued that the insured's own conduct barred him from obtaining recovery.
    • Obtained summary judgement on behalf of an insurance agent and agency against a lawyer/plaintiff in a case involving the placement of coverage for a residential commercial property in Philadelphia. Successfully argued that no breach of contract claim was manifested.
    • Successfully resolved a condominium dispute involving a resident who sued a condominium board and its individual officers in tort and contract, by establishing that the board acted properly in its management and oversight of the property.
    • Successfully defended claims for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of a non-profit retirement organization by arguing that the entity acted properly in assisting its members in purchasing and residing in a Center City condominium, despite claims by existing residents that the organization's members should not be permitted to live there, due to advanced age. Successfully utilized a Human Relations Commission decision on behalf of the elderly residents to effectively bring an end to the civil litigation.
    • Successfully argued that a policy of life insurance is not bound until the policy of insurance is actually delivered and is paid for by the policyholder.
    • Successfully able to reduce and resolve multi-million dollar settlement demands down to less than a fraction of the damages claimed. In one instance, the demand was for $1.6 million and was resolved for $245,000. In another instance, the demand was for $2.1 million and the case was resolved for $160,000.
    • Through the use of inspection, engineering, or construction experts, was able to resolve for pennies on the dollar cases with high exposure, including extra-contractual damage exposure.
    • Successfully employed the use of appraisers, conduct experts, and cause and origin experts to resolve multiple matters involving potential exposure in excess of $1  million for fractions of that amount.

Results

View all

Defense Award Following Six-Week FINRA Hearing

We obtained a defense award on a six-week FINRA hearing where our client, a General Agent, faced an alleged defamation/conversion/wrongful termination claim. The claimants contended that our client not only wrongfully discharged them after discovering their involvement in a bank-owned life insurance transaction, but also converted their trails and commissions, and defamed them on their U-5 form published through FINRA BrokerCheck. Damages totaling $15 million and punitive damages were sought by the three claimants. While the panel awarded $8 million in damages against the firm they were affiliated with, we obtained a defense award on all counts and dismissal of all claims for punitive damages on behalf of our General Agent client.

Investigation Against Home Appraiser Shut Down by Defense

We successfully defended a home appraiser in a regulatory investigation undertaken by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Bureau of Enforcement relating to the appraisal of a five-acre parcel of property. The complainant contended the valuation arrived at by the appraiser (as part of a divorce proceeding) was artificially low given the fact the parcel was sub-dividable. We convinced the investigator that the appraisal number arrived at was in line with comparable properties in the area, particularly given some of the ingress issues involved in accessing the property. After an in-person interview of the appraiser and submissions, the investigator elected to shut the investigation down and take no further action against the appraiser. 

Thought Leadership

View all

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Our Real Estate E&O Liability Practice Group

December 1, 2022

Our Real Estate E&O Liability Practice Group has a long history of representing real estate professionals. We have defended real estate brokers and agents, title agents and abstractors, appraisers, surveyors, home inspectors, mortgage companies, property management companies and condominium associations, on all types of claims brought in state and federal court and regulatory forums throughout all jurisdictions in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Florida, Delaware, Ohio and Connecticut. These claims manifest themselves in a variety of ways, with most arising from commercial and residential real estate transactions. They involve disputes surrounding disclosures, financing, valuation, liens, zoning, property management, conditions, construction, and a variety of other items that arise from the property acquisition and transfer process. The claims range from contract to tort, to those raising statutory violations. Many present equitable issues involving easements, deed restrictions and title. Apart from these standard E&O claims, the Group also represents and defends condominium associations and boards in disputes arising with and between unit owners and third parties. These claims may involve property damage, construction, water, fire and mold disputes. They can also include a variety of other issues, including those specific to particular jurisdictions, like mold, sinkholes and storm-related claims. We also handle disputes surrounding the legal interpretation and application of association governance documents, such as declarations and by-laws in declaratory judgment actions. In the regulatory forum, our lawyers regularly defend real estate professionals against customer complaints resulting from the delivery of services. They often implicate violations of state and administrative law concerning the delivery of professional services. We defend real estate agents, appraisers, title agents and a variety of other professionals from these complaints, starting with the customer complaint or initial inquiry received through the administrative hearing process. Our practice group is composed of seasoned, creative and highly regarded lawyers who have litigated many complex disputes. They include shareholders: Jay Rothman, Jeffrey Chomko and Dana Gittleman in Philadelphia; Christopher Conrad in our Harrisburg office; Jonathan Kanov in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Christopher Block in our Roseland, New Jersey, office; and Aaron Moore in our Wilmington, Delaware, office. We also have a team of associates and paralegals who work with them in preparing and defending all aspects of these cases. We pride ourselves on our strong reputation, earned over the last 60 years through the successful defense of the most complex and difficult matters. Our philosophy is simple: to quickly evaluate and strive to efficiently resolve these matters at an early stage, if possible, in order to avoid costly, unpredictable litigation. Nevertheless, if necessary, we are prepared to take to trial those cases that cannot be resolved. We also present seminars and training sessions to clients and insureds that address legal issues that arise in the particular jurisdictions we service. We discuss best practices for real estate agents, home inspectors and other professionals. We welcome you to look at the bios of our attorneys in the group and reach out to us with any questions.   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

Ohio Supreme Court Holds That a Binding Appraisal Award May Not Be Set Aside Absent Specific Evidence of Manifest Mistake or Fraud

On July 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a rare opinion on the binding effect of an appraisal award in a property insurance policy.  The Court in One Church held: A binding appraisal award will not be set aside unless an error is so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—To plead a claim of mistake with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B), facts alleged in a complaint must constitute the elements of mistake—Allegation that additional, hidden damage was discovered after appraisal award failed to state a claim of mistake that could justify setting aside binding appraisal.  The case arose out of a claim brought by One Church against its insurer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company for roof damage from a storm. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the parties agreed to submit the matter to appraisal. The two appraisers inspected the building, and both appraisers agreed that the damages were $313,271.98. The insurer paid the agreed appraised amount.  Thereafter, the insured submitted a claim for an additional $206,663.09 in damages. The insured argued that these additional damages were not discovered until after the repairs began, and that they should be permitted to submit an additional claim, even though there had already been a binding appraisal of damages. The insurer refused to pay the additional damages, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  In the trial court, the insurer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the binding appraisal award barred any further claims. The insured took the position that additional hidden damages could not be discovered until after the repairs began, and therefore there was a mutual mistake. The trial court dismissed the case on the insurer’s motion, because there was no “evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake”. The Court of Appeals agreed that appraisal awards are generally binding, but noted that an appraisal award can be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the insured had pled mistake with sufficient particularity. The insurer appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court decision dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court found that since the insured had already demanded appraisal, and the appraisal award was binding, “something more than error of judgement, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake” must be pled with particularity, and proven for the insured to override the appraisal award. Since the complaint did not allege fraud or manifest mistake with sufficient particularity, something more than a mere error of judgment, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim.  The complaint in this case did not challenge the appraisal award. It pled that additional damages were discovered that were not apparent when the appraisal was done. It did not specify “who discovered the damages, how they were discovered, where they were found, why they were previously hidden, or why they rise to the level of a manifest mistake that the “appraiser would have corrected...had it been called to his attention”. Id at ¶22 citing Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases deciding the effect of appraisal awards are unusual. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in One Church relies primarily on 19th century case law for its conclusion. This emphasizes the fact that there is minimal case law deciding the effect of binding appraisal clauses in property insurance policies, and makes this case all the more significant. A lengthy dissent was written by Justice Fisher, who would have affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding the case for a decision on the merits. Of course, the decision works both ways, and an insurer dissatisfied with a binding appraisal award will likewise be without further recourse absent evidence of corruption, fraud, misfeasance, or manifest mistake, which must be pled with particularity. To constitute manifest mistake, “the mistake must be of such character that the arbitrator or appraiser would have corrected it had it been called to his attention.”  Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970).  The majority opinion does not specifically identify what would have been sufficient to plead mistake with particularity, or if the insured could have amended the complaint to overcome the deficiencies. The dissent argues that this was not really a case alleging mistake, but rather a question of contract interpretation. The insured did not challenge the appraisal, but argued that the hidden damage was not part of the appraisal, and the appraisal only covered the known damages.  However, this argument did not carry the day with the majority. 

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

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.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

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. 

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

The Best Defense is Already in the File: Documentation in Civil Rights Litigation