.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

TOP 10 DEVELOPMENTS IN NEW JERSEY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IN 2025

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 12, December 2025

December 1, 2025

by Kiara K. Hartwell

1.    Proposed bills to protect workers from heat-related illnesses and injuries

A-5022, a bill which establishes “Occupational Heat-Related Illness and Injury Prevention Program” and occupational heat stress standard in Department of Labor and Workforce Development, was first introduced and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee on November 14, 2024. On February 20, 2025, it was reported out with amendments and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. In the absence of a heat stress standard by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), New Jersey is seeking to adopt one for the protection of workers against heat-related illnesses. The bill would require the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development to establish a heat stress standard by June 1, 2025. The standard would establish heat stress levels for employees that, if exceeded, trigger actions by employers to protect the employees from heat-related illness and require each employer to make and enforce a prevention plan. 

 

2.    The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of workers’ compensation claims for failure to meet burden of proof
Makins v. Palace Rehab & Care Ctr. and Premier Cadbury, LLC, No. A-2263-23 & A-2276-23 (April 24, 2025)

The petitioner worked as a license certified nursing assistant (CNA) at Palace from 2008 to 2016. She began working for Cadbury in 2015, initially working shifts for both employers. She resigned from Palace in 2016 and worked for Cadbury full-time until she was terminated in June 2018. While working for Palace on June 5, 2013, she filed a workers’ compensation claim for a low back injury sustained while helping a patient out of bed, for which she received an award. In June 2018, the petitioner re-opened her case and, shortly thereafter, filed two additional claims against Cadbury. One was for an alleged incident on February 11, 2018, that aggravated her low back injury. The other occurred on June 8, 2018; alleging while picking up a resident, she injured her left hip, left knee and low back. Cadbury denied the claims. After the petitioner and Cadbury’s witnesses testified, the judge issued an order and written decision dismissing the claims against Cadbury, noting inconsistencies in the petitioner’s testimony and documents in evidence. The petitioner and Palace appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed, noting they found no abuse of discretion or plain error on the bifurcation decision and no confusion between legal and medical causation. 

 

3.    The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment dismissal of negligence claims under the Workers’ Compensation Act
Jameel, etc. v. Dember, et al., No. A-1225-23 (April 28, 2025)

This negligence action against the defendants, Bayshore Community Medical Center (HMH) and Jennifer Dember, arose under the wrongful death and survivorship statues. On October 6, 2021, as the decedent was walking to work at HMH, Dember struck and killed her in the hospital’s employee parking lot. HMH noted it was paying dependency benefits to the decedent’s spouse. Taking into account the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act and its “intentional wrong” exception, the trial court granted summary judgment dismissal to HMH based on the Act and a lack of evidence of any intentional acts. The court also granted summary judgment dismissal to Dember under the Act’s co-employee immunity provision, noting that both Dember and the decedent were acting in the course of employment when the accident occurred. The plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division concluded HMH’s decision to direct Dember and the decedent to use a lot with less safety protections did not constitute an intentional wrong. The Appellate Division also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the trial court erred in dismissing its claim against HMH as well as for punitive damages. With regard to Dember, the Appellate Division found the car accident arose in the course of employment, noting that the trial court’s dismissal under the Act’s co-employee bar was appropriate. 

 

4.    The Appellate Division affirms workers’ compensation judge’s decision on course and scope and dual employment issues
Vola v. City of Northfield and Vola v. Asplundh Tree Expert, No. A-1627-23 (May 14, 2025)

The petitioner was employed with Northfield Police Department and filed a workers’ compensation claim against the City of Northfield and subsequently against Asplundh Tree Expert for the March 31, 2021, accident. On that day, the petitioner reported for a volunteer extra traffic duty assignment and checked out a police car to meet the Asplundh trucks. He was struck by another car as he attempted to follow the Asplundh trucks. Asplundh denied joint employment and filed a motion to dismiss, which Northfield opposed. The judge noted that Asplundh was required to pay the petitioner and hold Northfield harmless as well as to add them to its certificate of insurance. He found this assignment began the moment the petitioner pulled out of the police building with his police car and both Northfield and Asplundh were responsible. He indicated Asplundh was a “joint special employer” and ordered them to reimburse Northfield. Asplundh appealed, arguing the judge erred in finding that it was a “joint special employer” as there was no contract, the petitioner was not paid wages by Asplundh, the assignment was made by Northfield and the petitioner did not interact with Asplundh employees. The Appellate Division rejected this contention, but it first addressed the “special mission doctrine” as raised by Northfield. The Appellate Division agreed that the petitioner was in the course and scope of his employment the moment he left the police headquarters, confirming his injuries were compensable under this doctrine. As for the joint employer argument, the Appellate Division relied on the judge’s decision, which was supported by sufficient, credible evidence that the petitioner was a dual employee. The Appellate Division ultimately affirmed the judge’s order.

 

5.    The Appellate Division affirmed a trial judge’s order dismissing claims in reviewing the intentional wrongdoing doctrine
Bunting v. Emil A. Schroth, Inc., et al., No. A-1972-23 (May 16, 2025)

The petitioner injured his foot while working for Emil A. Schroth, Inc. He was paid workers’ compensation benefits under Schroth’s carrier, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJM). Bunting filed a personal injury lawsuit against Schroth, alleging gross negligence and intentional wrongdoing. Bunting and Schroth entered into a consent judgment for $1.250 million, and Schroth assigned its rights to Bunting to pursue insurance coverage from the insurers—NJM, Great Northern Insurance Company and Chubb Insurance Company of New Jersey. The insurers denied defense and indemnity coverage for this accident and filed separate Rule 4:6-2(e) motions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, arguing the policy exclusions and noting lack of coverage for intentional bodily injury applied. Bunting opposed and cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The motion judge issued an order granting the motions to dismiss and denying Bunting’s cross-motion for summary judgment. He rejected Bunting’s contention that the exclusion violated public policy and that the plain language excluded all intentional wrongs. Bunting appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the order dismissing Bunting’s claims for coverage from the insurers. They confirmed the insurers are not obligated to provide defense nor indemnity coverage due to the exclusion due to Bunting’s allegation that Schroth’s intentional wrongdoing caused his injury.

 

6.    The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment granted to defendants due to lack of intentional wrong and lack of Affidavits of Merit
Estate of Mike Alexander, Deceased, et al. v. Northeast Sweepers, et al., No. A-1486-23 (June 19, 2025)

The plaintiffs appealed three orders granting summary judgment to Crisdel Group, Inc.; HAKS Engineers, Architects and Land surveyors, P.C.; and Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. (JMT) By way of background, Mr. Alexander was struck and killed by a sweeper truck while working in an active construction zone on the New Jersey Turnpike. Crisdel was the plaintiff’s employer and was hired as the general contractor. HAKS was retained by the New Jersey Transportation Authority to provide “professional services” for the resurfacing project, including supervision to ensure compliance. In October 2014, the plaintiffs filed a complaint; in January 2016, they amended to add claims against HAKS and JMT. In the amended complaint, they alleged intentional wrongs, noting that HAKS and JMT were responsible for supervision and had negligently supervised the project. Alexander and his estate received workers’ compensation benefits. After oral arguments, the trial court issued orders dismissing the claims, noting the negligence was in their professional capacities as engineers; therefore, Affidavits of Merit were needed. 

Following a denial of the motion for reconsideration in September 2017 and after the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal, the orders dismissing the claims against HAKS and JMT were reversed for a more complete record on whether the claims necessitated the Affidavit of Merit requirement. On remand, Crisdel moved for summary judgment. After oral arguments, the trial court granted summary judgment because the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that Crisdel committed an intentional wrong or that this type of accident occurred in constructions areas. 

HAKS and JMT moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs’ claims involved professional engineering service malpractice claims. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, noting the expert reports and deposition testimony revealed the duties of HAKS and JMT were within the practice of engineering. As such, the plaintiffs needed to submit an Affidavit of Merit and their failure to do so required dismissal of their claims. 

The Appellate Division reviewed under the de novo standard and delved into the Workers’ Compensation Act and case law regarding intentional wrongs. The Appellate Division found no evidence of an intentional wrong within the meaning of the Act. As such, the Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Crisdel. In addition, as the undisputed evidence showed HAKS and JMT were providing professional engineering services and the plaintiffs failed to timely serve Affidavits of Merit, the Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment to HAKS and JMT.

 

7.    The Appellate Division reviewed the statute of limitations issues in a third-party case involving the employer
Weiss v. Borough of Franklin Lakes, et al., No. A-3831-22 (July 31, 2025)

The plaintiff was employed by Altona Blower & Sheet Metal Works and was tasked with designing, constructing and installing a firefighter training simulator purchased by the Borough of Franklin Lakes. During installation, the simulator fell from about 8.5 feet, striking the plaintiff in the head and torso. He was flown by helicopter to a trauma center. The plaintiff filed suit against the Borough, the Fire Department of Franklin Lakes and a division of Borough government (municipal defendants). The municipal defendants then filed a third-party complaint against Altona. After the court granted his motion to file an amended complaint, the plaintiff added Altona as a defendant. Altona moved for summary judgment due to the two-year statute of limitations. The court granted Altona’s motion, noting the plaintiff waited nearly three years after the accident to move for leave to amend the complaint and that he was well aware he could file against Altona as his employer. The municipal defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted, noting they were immune under the Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration, which the court denied. The plaintiff appealed, but the Appellate Division found the court did not deny the plaintiff his procedural due process during the Altona motion hearing based on the transcript. Also, the plaintiff should have been well aware of his claim against Altona, but he failed to file within the statute of limitations time period. The Appellate Division also found no basis to reverse the orders against the municipal defendants or the plaintiff in his reconsideration motion.

 

8.    The Appellate Division examined a disability finding by workers’ compensation judge
Brooks v. Rutgers, the State Univ. of N.J., No. A-1013-23 (August 7, 2025)

The petitioner worked for Rutgers as a custodian between 2000 and 2013, before he was terminated for being physically unable to perform his duties. The petitioner filed a workers’ compensation claim, alleging various injuries due to occupational exposure. While the parties resolved the pulmonary aspect of the claim, the petitioner filed a Verified Petition against the Second Injury Fund. While he admitted to prior health issues, he testified that his conditions worsened after working at Rutgers. He received injections to his low back and eventually underwent right knee replacement. The  petitioner did not wish to give up his job at Rutgers, but a disability retirement was suggested and eventually was sent a letter of termination. He then applied for disability retirement pension and Social Security Disability, receiving both after being found totally disabled. The workers’ compensation judge issued a written decision, noting the petitioner to be very credible and relying on the doctors’ testimonies to find his job aggravated the petitioner’s pre-existing conditions. The judge found 74% disability, apportioning for the bilateral hands, bilateral legs and lumbar spine, with a credit for pre-existing injuries to all except the left leg. The judge also dismissed the claim against the Second Injury Fund. Rutgers appealed, arguing the judge erred in finding causal relationship. The petitioner cross-appealed, arguing the judge erred in not finding him 100% disabled. The Appellate Division deferred to the judge’s determination of the degree of the petitioner’s disability and affirmed the order.

 

9.    The Appellate Division affirmed decision to direct respondent to provide authorized treatment
Peralta v. Silver Line Bldg. Prods., No. A-0370-24 (September 24, 2025)

On July 16, 2020, the petitioner was injured lifting glass while working for the respondent. He was referred by his primary care doctor to a specialist, who performed two emergent cervical spine surgeries. As such, the respondent denied compensability. A motion for medical and temporary benefits was filed, and the workers’ compensation judge found the first surgery in October 2020 (C5-6 anterior decompression and fusion) was compensable, but not the second in April 2021 (C2-T1 posterior fusion). The October 2023 decision directed the respondent to authorize the petitioner to return to his doctor, provide all recommended treatment, pay for the first surgery and provide temporary disability benefits. The doctor then recommended a third surgery (C7-T1 anterior discectomy and fusion). The respondent opposed, noting the second surgery was not compensable. The petitioner moved to enforce, and a trial was held before a second judge, who found the respondent should provide the third surgery. The respondent appealed. After reviewing the standard of review, the Appellate Division affirmed substantially for the reasons in the September 24, 2024, decision. A comment was added to address the res judicata and collateral estoppel arguments, noting they did not apply because the issue in the second trial was not the same as the one decided before. 

 

10.    A5792/S4590 signed into law

On August 21, 2025, Governor Murphy signed A5792/S4590 into law. This provides for workers’ compensation coverage of certain counseling services for first responders and provides that certain mental health related communications are confidential.  

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 12, December 2025 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Thought Leadership

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees Due to Lack of Evidence to Support Fee Awarded

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding appellate fees to People’s Trust Insurance Company based upon a lack of evidence to support the attorney’s fee award in RM & Assocs. Consulting, Inc. v. People's Trust Ins. Co., 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 4654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). People’s Trust was the insurer of a residential property that had sustained water damage. RM & Associates Consulting was hired by the homeowner to perform mitigation services at the property. The homeowner assigned post-loss benefits to RM and RM subsequently filed suit against People’s Trust alleging that it had not been paid the money it was owed for the mitigation services. People’s Trust defended the lawsuit on the ground that the policy required the insured to notify the insurer before authorizing repairs so People's Trust could elect to use its preferred contractor. Because the owner did not comply with that provision, People's Trust asserted its liability was limited to the amount that its preferred contractor would have charged for the work, which People's Trust contended was $2,000. People's Trust paid that amount to RM before RM filed suit. People’s Trust filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. RM appealed the summary judgment ruling and the ruling was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate court also granted People’s Trust’s entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, subject to the trial court’s determination of the amount of fees, based upon an offer of judgment made by People's Trust. On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees People’s Trust was entitled to. At the hearing, People’s Trust presented testimony from it’s fee expert, supervising trial counsel and appellate counsel. People’s Trust sought recovery of $24,866.17 for work performed by appellate counsel. The request primarily consisted of work performed in preparation of the answer brief. The fee expert testified that more than ninety hours spent preparing the answer brief was reasonable given the complexity and significance of the underlying issue. The appellate court found that the fee expert’s testimony fell short of meeting the necessary standard of demonstrating that the hours expended were necessary. The appellate court found that the billing records did not serve to cure the deficient testimony, as the billing records did not contain adequate details regarding the specific tasks performed. Rather the records contained entries such as “answer brief” which the appellate court found to be insufficient. The appellate court noted that neither the fee expert or counsel addressed how the prior research and briefing in the parallel litigation informed the work in the instant matter. The appellate court noted this was significant in that a court's attorney's fees award must exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, citing Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based upon the record failing to support the finding of the trial court, the 4th DCA remanded the case to the trial court for a reconsideration and redetermination of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees supported by competent substantial evidence. The 4th DCA reiterated that the fee expert’s focus on the quality of the work and the importance of the work to People’s Trust did not make up for the perceived deficiencies in the position that spending over ninety hours on a single answer brief was reasonable. Whether moving for attorney’s fees or challenging the amount of fees being sought by an opposing party, practitioners should be mindful of the evidence being used to support the claims being made. Parties should pay close attention to whether the hours being sought may be impacted by prior litigation either party may have engaged in. A party must be prepared to address how prior litigation efforts did or did not impact the amount of hours being claimed in current litigation. Lastly, billing records must be sufficiently detailed so as to support any potential future fee claim.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Ellen C. Bodenmiller Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Tampa Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Ellen C. Bodenmiller Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Tampa Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Thought Leadership

First DCA Reverses Excessive Jury Award Unsupported by the Evidence

In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a claim with Universal for damages caused by a water and sewage back up through the plumbing system and existing through multiple fixtures including the washing machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub and toilet. Universal investigated the claim, issued payment for resulting water damage totaling $7,000.00 in actual cash value ($12,000.00 in replacement cost value). The plaintiffs sought additional benefits for work needed to access the below-slab cast iron plumbing system due to the failure of the system from rust, deterioration, corrosion and breaks in the line. Universal denied any additional benefits for access. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed suit. During litigation, Universal sent a plumber to inspect the home and the plumber concluded the pipes were clogged but could be cleaned. The plaintiffs’ plumber testified that the plumbing system needed to be replaced due to holes and openings in the pipes. The plaintiffs introduced two estimates prepared by Triad Restoration services totaling $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value and an executed contract with another company for repairs with the amounts of repair redacted. Since the insurance policy did not provide coverage for repair or replacement of the plumbing system, the jury only had to decide whether the plumbing system needed to be replaced, and if it did, Universal would owe for the access costs; the jury verdict form required the jury to determine both the replacement cost value and actual cash value amounts. The jury asked if it had to rely on the Triad estimates for their amounts. The trial court advised the amount awarded had to be based on the evidence presented at trial and the law given by the trial court. The jury awarded $335,000.00 in replacement cost value or $305,000.00 in actual cash value. Universal motioned for a new trial arguing the amount awarded was unsupported by the evidence and then moved for remittitur. The trial court denied both motions and this appeal followed. The court found that while a jury’s verdict should only be disturbed with caution and discretion, the trial court must give the properly challenged award close scrutiny and determine whether it bears a reasonable relation to the damaged provided, is supported by the evidence, and could have been reached in a logical manner by reasonable means §768.74(3), (5)(d)-(e), Fla. Stat. The court found the trial court did consider the statutory requirements at the hearing on Universal’s remittitur motion and was concerned about a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and injury suffered and whether the award was supported by the evidence, but ultimately denied the motion, reasoning that the jury had been properly instructed to fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs. The court noted the only evidence providing the basis for the jury verdict was Triad’s estimates and those valued the plaintiffs' claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value; no valuation evidence reasonably supported the jury verdict. The plaintiffs argued that the jury was entitled to consider more than the estimates, but the court conveyed the evidence provided did not give the jury a way to reach the amounts they awarded. The court was also not swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument regarding inflation and later price increases, but the court noted that no evidence via the contract, nor testimony regarding increase in labor, material, fuel or construction costs were entered into the record.  The court concluded the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but it may not supply a damages number by speculation. The court did not find any of the plaintiffs’ remaining argument persuasive either. The court reversed the denial of Universal’s remittitur motion and motion for new trial as to damaged and remanded the case. The court ended its opinion with advising the trial court must determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the property measure of damages under the policy and order remittitur in an amount consistent with that determination and the evidence.

Result

Federal Statute Declared Constitutional

In this products liability case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court and upheld the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which resulted in judgment as a matter of law for the defendant manufacturer.

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

News

106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America

Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 106 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for this recognition. Additionally, four of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” awards in their respective practice areas and demographic regions. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. For more information, please visit https://www.bestlawyers.com/. OUR 2027 LAWYERS OF THE YEAR Harrisburg, PA Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers Compensation Law - Employers Roseland, NJ Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA Philadelphia, PA Nicholas D. Bowers, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Josh J. T. Byrne, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Jefferey J. Chomko, Insurance Law James H. Cole, Insurance Law John J. Delany III, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Laurianne Falcone, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John P. Gonzales, Employment Law - Management John Hare, Appellate Practice Daniel D. Krebbs, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Michele Punturi, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Bradley D. Remick, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Andrea Cicero Rock, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robin M. Romano, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Daniel J. Ryan, Jr., Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Gary M. Samms, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Christopher N. Santoro, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation -Defendants Josh D. Scheets, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Robert P. Schenk, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robert E. Smith, Insurance Law Robin Snyder, Litigation - Health Care Michael L. Turner, Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Claire Breaux Ventola, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Melissa Devich Cochran, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants  John F. Deasy, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Daniel W. Deitrick, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Douglas C. LaSota, Litigation - Construction; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Joseph V. Lesinski, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants   Christian D. Marquis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia A. Monahan, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Patrick T. Reilly, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Brett C. Shear, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Teresa O. Sirianni, Education Law; Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment Stuart Sostmann, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Scranton, PA Sarah E. Argo, Litigation - Insurance Michael J. Connolly, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Matthew Keris, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants John T. McGrath, Jr., Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants William J. McPartland, Insurance Law John R. Nealon, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Victoria Scanlon, Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Michael A. Sebastian, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Thomas A. Specht, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Suzanne Tighe, Litigation Insurance Harrisburg , PA Casey Alan Coyle, Administrative/Regulatory Law; Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation Brittany E. Bakshi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Shannon P. Fellin, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Allison Krupp, Insurance Law John R. Ninosky, Litigation – Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers King of Prussia, PA  Michael L. Detweiler, Construction Law Joseph L. Hoynoski III, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Gregory J. Kelley, Construction Law, Litigation - Construction Anthony Natale III, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Francis X. Wickersham, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers A. Judd Woytek, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers Erie, PA Patrick M. Carey, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Joel M. Snavely, Health Care Law; Insurance Law New Haven, CT Michael Wrona, Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Bankruptcy  Mount Laurel, NJ David D. Blake, Litigation - Insurance Barbara Davis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lynne Nahmani, Litigation - Health Care John H. Osorio, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John L. Slimm, Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants Roseland, NJ Robert T. Evers, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Julia Klubenspies, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard C. Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia M. McDonagh, Appellate Practice Sunny Sparano, Litigation - Construction Randall S. Watts, Health Care Law New York, NY Tonya M. Lindsey, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Tampa, FL Michael Archibald, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lindsay G. McCormick, Litigation – Construction Orlando, FL Thomas F. Brown, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Dante C. Rohr, Commercial Litigation Fort Lauderdale, FL Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Appellate Practice Patrick M. Delong, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Jacksonville, FL  Heather Byrer Carbone, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Linda Wagner Farrell, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Elizabeth B. Ferguson, Litigation - Construction James P. Hanratty, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Wilmington, DE Sarah B. Cole, Litigation - Insurance Benjamin K. Durstein, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Maria R. Granaudo, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants  Keri L. Morris-Johnston, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Cincinnati, OH Timothy B. Schenkel, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David E. Williamson, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Cleveland, OH Vincent E. Cononico, Litigation – Insurance, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Jillian L. Dinehart, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David J. Fagnilli, Insurance Law Jason P. Ferrante, Health Care Law, Litigation - Health Care Andrew H. Isakoff, Transportation Law Leslie M. Jenny, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendant OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS: ONES TO WATCH Jacksonville, FL Sean J. Reeves, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Orlando, FL Carolin A. Pacheco, Insurance Law Mount Laurel Stacey Gorin, Insurance Law Melville, NY Kimberly Gitlin, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Matthew A. Gray, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Philadelphia, PA Holli K. Archer, Health Care Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law Emily Pritchyk, Commercial Litigation; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Taylor E. Kosko, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Alana Staniszewski, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Michael D. Winsko, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants; Transportation Law King of Prussia, PA Richard Lechette, Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Thought Leadership

United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida finds Evidence of Replacement Cost Value is Admissible and Recoverable Even When Repairs Have Not Been Made

The plaintiff filed a claim for damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. It claimed damages were over $24 million, but the carrier accepted partial coverage and paid $8,307.49 for secondary components. The carrier found hurricane damage to the building, but it was below the insurance policy’s $3.6 million deductible. The plaintiff sued for breach of the insurance policy. The carrier argued in a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff could not recover replacement cost value (RCV) because the property repairs had not been effectuated. The policy provided for RCV, but only after the repairs were completed. The carrier argued that because the repairs were not completed, the plaintiff was not entitled to RCV damages. The plaintiff argued the carrier could not withhold the actual cost value (ACV) due, which was the main allegation of the lawsuit, then fault it for not making the repairs to unlock the RCV. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected the carrier’s argument, finding that when an insurer allegedly breached the policy by withholding coverage, it could not hide behind a repair-contingent provision to block the insured from RCV damages at trial. The court found the issue to be whether the contractual language designed to preclude certain coverage until after repairs are completed barred an insured from seeking those damages at trial when repairs were not complete. The court noted the Eleventh Circuit had not resolved this issue and neither side pointed to a definitive answer from the Florida Supreme Court. The court reasoned that it must look to the Sixth District Court of Appeal (6th DCA), which is the court which would have heard this case if it was in state court. The court noted the 6th DCA recently addressed this issue in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 427 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026). The Rodriguez Court found that a breach of contract action is designed to adjudicate not only whether the contract was breached, but also evaluate the damages incurred had the breach not occurred, which the Rodriguez court found to be recovery of the RCV. This court also noted basic Florida contract principles compelled the same result, as a material breach frees the nonbreaching party to suspend its own performance and can demand the full benefit of its bargain, including RCV damages. Finally, the court found the distinction between a full denial and partial denial did not compel a different result. It found the policy required the carrier to acknowledge coverage and pay ACV for all covered damages, and the failure to do that is a material breach, entitling the insured to all of the damages available under the contract, which included the RCV.