Brad E. Haas
Areas of Practice
Brad is a shareholder in the Casualty Department and concentrates his practice on the defense of companies and individuals in a wide array of civil litigation matters. He has successfully litigated cases involving automobile and trucking liability, premises liability, breach of warranty, insurance coverage/bad faith litigation and general liability matters. Brad’s experience includes efficiently managing files from inception through settlement or verdict. Brad also has significant alternative dispute resolution experience, having resolved hundreds of cases through mediation and arbitration throughout Pennsylvania.
Brad has been awarded an AV® Preeminent™ rating by Martindale-Hubbell. Throughout his career, he has been active in the preparation of articles in his fields of concentration and has given numerous presentations to clients regarding various casualty defense-related matters.
In addition to his legal practice, Brad is involved with several organizations throughout the community. Brad is a USA Hockey On-Ice official and officiates games at the high school and college levels throughout the tri-state area. Brad performs legal pro-bono work on behalf of the Wills for Heroes Foundation, providing wills and powers of attorney to police officers and EMTs. Formerly, Brad served as a founding member of the Board of Directors for the Gift of Adoption Fund-Pittsburgh Chapter, a national charitable organization.
Brad is a 2010 graduate of West Virginia University. He received his juris doctor from the Case Western Reserve University School of Law in 2013, where he served as an executive editor of the school’ Journal of Law-Medicine. While in law school, Brad received a merit-based academic scholarship for outstanding academic performance.
Secured an extremely favorable verdict following a jury trial solely on damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff alleged a collision with the Defendant’s large truck caused serious head and neck injuries. Through cross examination, Brad was able to demonstrate the Plaintiff’s injuries were largely related to significant pre-accident and degenerative medical conditions. At the conclusion of trial, the jury awarded Plaintiff less than four percent of her settlement demand.
Obtained a favorable settlement in seven-figure lawsuit, involving a tractor-trailer accident. Following significant discovery, Brad was able to secure a settlement significantly below Plaintiff’s initial demand, after uncovering pre-accident medical records, which identified various inconsistencies related to Plaintiff’s alleged medical damages.
Secured a dismissal of Plaintiff's claims via a Motion for Summary Judgment in a lawsuit involving a six-vehicle commercial automobile accident. Brad argued Plaintiff's own deposition testimony, along with documentary evidence failed to establish any negligence on the part of the Defendant.
Secured a favorable verdict in a non-jury trial based on an alleged breach of an automobile warranty. Following testimony, the judge awarded less than 10 percent of Plaintiff’s pre-trial settlement demand.
Successfully defended an insurance company in multiple direct lawsuits brought by an insured. Plaintiff alleged property damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff also alleged, in a separate lawsuit, that the insurance company failed to comply with the terms of a warranty and acted in bad faith. Brad argued that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring these suits, while also disputing the merits of Plaintiff’s allegations. The cases were dismissed via a Motion for Judgment Non Pros and a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Secured a dismissal of all claims via Summary Judgment on behalf of a national grocery store chain. Plaintiff alleged she was caused to fall in the store due to an accumulation of a wet substance. Deposition testimony and written discovery revealed that Plaintiff could not identify what the substance was, how long it had been present, or whether the store had notice of the substance. Based upon this the Court granted the store’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Negotiated a favorable settlement in a six-figure UIM/Bad Faith case. Discovery and deposition evidence revealed Plaintiff had pre-existing injuries, which were not initially reported. Research further revealed Plaintiff working a second, under-the-table job during her alleged disability period. This information eventually led to a successful settlement on behalf of our client.
Secured a dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims in a product liability lawsuit brought against a national manufacturer. Plaintiffs alleged they sustained property damage due to a defective washing machine. Brad argued that Plaintiffs could not establish the requisite expert testimony to pursue a specific design theory; or the requisite documentary evidence to proceed under a malfunction theory. As a result, the Court granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Obtained Summary Judgment on behalf of an insurance agency in a seven-figure negligent procurement case. The trial court’s ruling was based upon a determination of a lack of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, and causation on behalf of both the insurance agent and agency.
Successfully defended a global food service corporation against a Plaintiff alleging various violations under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 42 U.S.C. 1985. In our client’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Brad argued Plaintiff’s section 1981 right to contract claims were invalid as she failed to demonstrate any contractual impairments. Brad argued Plaintiff’s section 1985 claims were barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, as the alleged conspiracy involved two employees of the same company. Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed in their entirety.
Obtained a defense judgement at arbitration on behalf of an apartment complex in a case involving a Plaintiff's suit for invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Brad argued that Plaintiff's claims for invasion of privacy were legally insufficient, as there existed no proof of an actual intrusion. He further argued that Plaintiff could not pursue her negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, as she suffered no physical harm.
Obtained multiple defense judgments on behalf of various auto manufacturers involved in breach of warranty lawsuits.
Pennsylvania Transportation Claim Valuation, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, September 2022
Continuing Impact of COVID-19 & Case Law Updates, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, March 2022
Best Practices for Claim Log Notes, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, June 2021
Special Damages in Auto and Trucking Claims in Pennsylvania, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, January 2020
Arbitration – Practice and Procedure, Marshall Dennehey Internal Presentation, June 2019
Social Media Evidence, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, February 2017
Premises Liability Claims in Pennsylvania, Client Seminar, June 2015
UIM/UM & Bad Faith Law Updates, Client Seminar, May 2014
Managing Liability for Videoconferencing While Driving, Risk Management Magazine, January 3, 2023
“Pennsylvania Superior Court Ends Split of Authority Based on Allegations of Recklessness Within a Negligence Complaint,” Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022
Federal District Court Comments on Fair Share Act’s Applicability In Cases Involving A “Faultless” Plaintiff in Light of Spencer V. Johnson, Legal Update for Pennsylvania Civil Litigation, July 13, 2022
"Superior Court Reviews Discoverability of Mental Health Records," Lawyers Journal, April 8, 2022
"Does the Fair Share Act Apply to Faultless Plaintiffs? A Defense Position in the Wake of Spencer v. Johnson," CounterPoint, newsletter of the PA Defense Institute, December 2021.
“Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Sudden Emergency Doctrine No Longer a ‘Defense’,” Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 4, September 2021
“Pennsylvania Superior Court Holds that Future Medical Expenses in Motor Vehicle Litigation Are Not Subject to Act VI Cost Containment Provisions,” Defense Digest, Vol. 26, No. 1, March 2020
"Social Media Discovery: Examining the Factual Predicate Standard," The Legal Intelligencer, March 5, 2016
"Autonomous Vehicles May Impact Legal Profession," Lawyers Journal, October 2, 2015
"Now You See It, Now You Don't: Self-Deleting Apps & Spoliation," Lawyers Journal, June 12, 2015 and Defense Digest, Vol. 21, No. 3, September 2015
"Deposition Tips for Earning Respect as a Young Attorney," The Legal Intelligencer, March 12, 2015