.

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

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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.

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.

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

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

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.

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.

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.