Ashley L. Davis

Ashley is an associate in the Casualty Department, handling matters involving Special Investigations (SIU), New York Labor Law, and General Liability matters.

As part of the Special Investigation practice group, Ashley’s experience is in defending cases where we assert allegations of fraud and exaggerated injuries against Plaintiffs. These fact-intensive cases involve fraud rings, staged accidents and exaggerated injuries, in addition to improper and fraudulent medical provider billing and reporting.

As part of the New York Labor Law practice group, Ashley handles complex construction site accident cases throughout the state. These include claims involving the use of scaffold systems, demolition and heavy machinery in industrial, commercial and residential projects

Ashley handles a variety of General Liability matters involving claims of personal injury and property damage. Specifically, defending clients in matter of premises liability (residential, commercial, restaurant, and retail) and motor vehicle torts, including for claims of wrongful death and punitive damages.

Ashley is admitted to practice in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New York. Outside of her work at Marshall Dennehey, she stays active through hiking, running, working out, and traveling.

- Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 2023)
- Kutztown University of Pennsylvania (B.A., 2018)
- Kutztown University of Pennsylvania (Paralegal Certificate, 2018)
- New Jersey, 2024
- Pennsylvania, 2024
- U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 2024
- Maryland, 2025
- New York, 2025
- U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York, 2025
Obtained summary judgment in a construction site accident matter in which the plaintiff alleged he was injured after lifting a cover and falling into a hole at an active worksite. Our client was the owner of the building under construction at the time of the accident. Based on the contractual agreements and testimony of the parties involved, we successfully argued that the subcontractors and the plaintiff’s employer were solely responsible for worker safety, supervision, and site conditions. We further argued that our client could not be held liable for the alleged negligence of independent contractors. The court agreed, finding that our client owed no duty to the plaintiff, and dismissed all claims against our client.
Obtained summary judgment in a breach of contract matter involving 41 separate small claims actions filed against our client arising from travel protection policies. The court consolidated the actions into a single matter. The plaintiff, acting by assignment from insureds, sought recovery under the policies’ rental car damage provisions for alleged vehicle damages incurred by his rental car company. We successfully argued that the majority of the assignments were invalid, depriving the plaintiff of standing to sue. We further argued that, even if the assignments were deemed valid, the plaintiff failed to comply with the policies’ terms, conditions, and claim submission requirements, including conditions precedent to coverage. The court agreed and dismissed all claims against our client.
Successfully obtained summary judgment in a slip-and-fall matter in which the plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on snow and ice in a parking lot while entering her vehicle. Our client owned property adjacent to that of a co-defendant, and based on the accident report, plaintiff’s testimony, and expert findings, we successfully argued that the incident did not occur on our client’s property and that our client therefore owed no duty to the plaintiff. The court agreed and dismissed all claims against our client.
Successfully obtained summary judgment in a breach of contract claim against our client in the Eastern District of New York. The case involved a rental car company attempting to recover from a credit card company based on credit cardholders’ assignment of Collision Damage Waiver benefits to the plaintiff. We argued that there were no contracts between the credit cardholders and our client, but that the contracts were between the cardholders and the non-party banks. The Court dismissed the case in its entirety.
Successfully won a dismissal of a New York Labor Law case before the Supreme Court, New York County. Plaintiff's counsel withdrew from this case after potential fraud issues were raised by the defense. The plaintiff proceeded pro se and then did not appear at further court conferences. The judge later dismissed the case entirely.
- “Enforceability of Choice-of-Law Provisions in Maritime Contracts,” Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2024

Results

View all

Summary Judgment Secured in Slip-and-Fall Case

We were granted summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case where the plaintiff claimed to have slipped and fell on snow/ice in a parking lot when getting into her car. Our client and one of the co-defendants had property lines next to each other. Based on the accident report, the plaintiff’s testimony and our expert report, we argued that the plaintiff did not fall on our property and, as a result, we owed her no duty. The judge agreed and dismissed all claims against our client.

Thought Leadership

View all

Defense Digest

Enforceability of Choice-of-Law Provisions in Maritime Contracts

December 1, 2024

Key Points: Choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are enforceable. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC helps with the uniformity of federal maritime law. This decision helps save on costs and time if there is a future dispute to the contract. General Overview A choice-of-law provision is a contractual provision that would be used to specify what law will govern the contract should a future dispute arise. Choice-of-law provisions have been known to be an issue when it comes to insurance contracts. A dispute arises when there are two different states’ laws that may be applicable to a contract and the parties do not agree on which one should be applied. If the parties do not agree and cannot decide which state’s law to apply, the court must then decide. These issues ultimately arise when the parties to the contract are in different jurisdictions. In many maritime contracts, the parties are from different jurisdictions, so this issue is one that comes up frequently. Enforceability of a choice-of-law provision is governed by federal maritime law. The Supreme Court of the United States recently applied federal maritime law in Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, 144 S. Ct. 637, 642 (2024). Their decision has streamlined this issue by holding, when there is a choice-of-law provision in a maritime contract, the court must enforce it, except if one of the two exceptions applies. Further, the Supreme Court stated that a “[l]ongstanding precedent establishes a federal maritime rule: Choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable.” Before this case, the Court had not addressed this issue, but other lower courts had. Rule on Choice-of-Law Provisions In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court determined that choice-of-law clauses in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, subject to two narrow exceptions: (1) when the chosen law would contravene a controlling federal statute or an established federal maritime policy; or (2) when the contracting parties cannot show any reasonable basis for the chosen jurisdiction. With regard to the second exception, the court must apply “substantial deference to the contracting parties.” Advantages of Rule on Choice-of-Law Provision The Supreme Court stated: “By identifying the governing law in advance, choice-of-law provisions allow parties to avoid later disputes—as well as ensuing litigation and its attendant costs.” Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, 144 S. Ct. 637, 644 (2024). Further, by allowing a choice-of-law provision to be enforceable in a contract, it will save time and money that would be expended on motions and hearings to determine which state’s law should apply to the dispute. If a maritime contract has a provision with the choice-of-law already agreed upon, there would be no dispute as to what law the court would apply to the case. Moreover, determining the choice-of-law in advance helps maritime shippers to decide on the front end “what precautions to take” on their ships (American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 454 (1994)) and enable[s] marine insurers to better assess risk (see Brief for American Institute of Marine Underwriters et al. as Amici Curiae, at pp. 12–13). Choice-of-law provisions, therefore, can lower the price and expand the availability of marine insurance. Should a dispute between parties arise, the court would then turn to the choice-of-law provision in the contract as the law to be applied, unless the contract falls within one of the two exceptions listed above. The Future The Supreme Court did not discuss the “issue of federalism in admiralty and the scope of application of state law in maritime cases...” Great Lakes Ins. SE, 144 S. Ct. at 642 (quoting 1 T. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law § 4:4, p. 268 (6th ed. 2018). As stated above, this rule on choice-of-law provisions applies to federal maritime law. However, if a state court is hearing a maritime case, it can apply its state laws, as long as they do not conflict with the federal maritime law. Conclusion This decision is favorable for insurers as these provisions will generally be upheld in future contracts. Also, by having these provisions in maritime contracts going forward, insurers will be saving time and costs on disputing these issues pre-trial. Lastly, knowing what law will apply to the contract gives the contracting parties the advance opportunity to determine what protections/precautions they should take. *Ashley is an associate in our Casualty Department and works in our Mount Laurel, New Jersey, office. Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2024, 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. © 2024 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.