Allison is a member of the Professional Liability Department where she concentrates her practice on insurance coverage and bad faith litigation. She routinely represents national/global insurance carriers in insurance coverage disputes and first-party automotive claims brought against them. Allison is experienced in many types of coverage issues, including: policy cancellation, policy reformation, phantom vehicle cases, and a variety of policy exclusions. She also defends clients in the area of bad faith litigation. She practices in Pennsylvania state and federal court, as well as before arbitration panels and appellate courts.
For two years prior to joining the firm, Allison served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Judge Donald R. Totaro in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. During her final year of law school, Allison served as a legal extern for the Honorable Justice J. Michael Eakin of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. She also served as a certified legal intern for the Pennsylvania State Civil Service Commission in the Hearings and Appeals Department.
In 2006, Allison graduated magna cum laude from York College of Pennsylvania. She then attended the Widener University School of Law and graduated cum laude in 2009. During her time in law school, Allison served on Widener’s Law Journal and was the president of the Moot Court Honor Society from 2008 to 2009.
Results
Achieved Dismissal of an Appeal of Our Defense Verdict
We won dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal of a defense verdict. Our client issued a professional liability insurance policy to the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs were sued for legal malpractice, they notified our client of the suit and asked them to provide counsel to defend the matter. However, the plaintiffs never agreed to counsel proposed by our client. The plaintiffs then proceeded to mediation in the legal malpractice action and settled the matter without notifying our client. As a result, our client denied the plaintiffs’ request for indemnification. The plaintiffs then brought suit against our client for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging they wrongly denied indemnification and failed to provide counsel. The matter went to jury trial from April 8–11, 2024, where we successfully defended our client as the jury returned a defense verdict. The plaintiffs filed post-trial motions and then appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the jury to see a copy of the insurance contract during their deliberations. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal and found that the plaintiffs waived their argument by failing to cite relevant legal authority in their appellate brief. The Superior Court also stated in a footnote that, should the court have reached the issue on appeal, it would have found it meritless because the insurance contract was a central piece of evidence to which the plaintiffs did not object during trial.
Jury Verdict Received in a Breach of Contract Action
We secured a jury verdict in a breach of contract/statutory bad faith action that arose under a legal malpractice policy issued to a law firm by our insurance company client. The plaintiffs settled a malpractice claim set forth against them without our client’s knowledge or consent. The insurance company then denied coverage for that claim, and the plaintiffs filed suit. Because the case included a bad faith claim, if the plaintiffs prevailed on both counts, the damages could have been seven figures or more. We took the case to trial before Judge Patrick in Philadelphia County. The jury returned a verdict on the breach of contract claim, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their damages by a preponderance of the evidence. The judge then dismissed the statutory bad faith claim.
Thought Leadership
‘Regular Use Exclusions’ Stand: Pa. Supreme Court’s Latest Ruling Post-’Gallagher’
August 20, 2024
After the Pennsylvania Superior Court determined in 2021 that “regular use exclusions” in UM/UIM policies violate the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), and in a post-Gallagher legal landscape, some were ready to put the regular use exclusion to rest for good. Now, however, in Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 308 A.3d 780 (Pa. Jan. 29, 2024), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a lengthy majority opinion, has confirmed that the regular use exclusion remains very much alive.
Legal Updates for Coverage & Bad Faith
New Jersey Legislature Passes Bad Faith – What’s Next??
January 14, 2022
New Jersey is on the brink of its first insurance bad faith statute after clearing both the Senate and Assembly by vote on January 10, 2022. While the New Jersey Legislature website does not indicate when it may happen, it is anticipated that Governor Murphy will sign this Bill into law. The Bill is titled “New Jersey Insurance Fair Conduct Act.” The statute provides “claimants” with a private cause of action for conduct deemed “unfair and discriminatory,” as delineated in the Act, N.J.S.A. 17:B29-4. The earliest version of the Bill applied to all lines of insurance. However, the Assembly and Senate Committees pared the initial legislation down, and the current form of the law applies only to underinsured and uninsured motorist claims. Per the language of the statute, a claimant may file a civil action against an automobile insurer for “(1) an unreasonable delay or unreasonable denial of a claim for payment of benefits under an insurance policy; or (2) any violation of the provisions of section 4 of P.L. 1947, c.379 (C.17:29B-4) [The New Jersey Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act].” It is important to note that in New Jersey, a private right of action did not exist under the Act. Instead, the state could take administrative action against the insurer for violations of the Act, but only if the violations constituted a “general business practice.” This Bill not only creates a private cause of action under the Act, but (unlike the state) a private claimant is not required to prove that the insurer’s actions were of such a frequency as to indicate a general business practice. If the claimant establishes that a violation has occurred, he/she “shall” be entitled to actual damages caused by the violation and prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney’s fees and all reasonable litigation expenses. Thus, the Bill turns a law designed to deter “general business practices” into a sword to punish violations on a case-by-case basis, which was never its original intent. It is unclear at this point how the courts will interpret “unreasonable delay” and/or “unreasonable denial”; however, they are certainly issues that will generate a great deal of litigation in the coming years. The attorneys in Marshall Dennehey’s Insurance Services Practice Group are highly experienced in handling such litigation and stand ready to answer questions and help you defend these cases once the Bill is signed into law. Click here to view the Bill: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2020/S1559 or contact us for a copy. Legal Updates for Insurance Services – January 14, 2022, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved.
News
98 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2026 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America
August 20, 2025
109 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2025 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America
August 15, 2024
