.

Gregory J. Kelley

Portrait of Gregory J. Kelley

Gregory concentrates the majority of his practice defending matters regarding architects and engineers, construction defect litigation and construction accidents. As well, he maintains a smaller portion of his practice in the defense of product liability claims. He splits his time between our King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and Mount Laurel, New Jersey, offices.

Formerly a litigation specialist for a large casualty insurer in Pennsylvania and Delaware, Gregory was responsible for and developed experience in the evaluation, negotiation and defense strategy for catastrophic personal injury and property damage claims. He also served as an instructor for in-house claims professional seminars on topics of Case Evaluation & Negotiation and Insurance Coverage.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey in 2004, Gregory was with a defense firm where his practice involved defending personal injury and property damage matters, focusing on architect and engineer professional liability and construction claims, products, general, premises liability claims and insurance coverage matters.

In 1982, Gregory graduated from Villanova University with a Bachelor of Science degree. While working as an insurance claims professional, he earned his juris doctor from Widener University School of Law in 1992 and is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 1992)
    • Villanova University (B.S., 1982)
    • New Jersey, 1993
    • Pennsylvania, 1993
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1993
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 1993
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2000
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2000
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Litigation – Construction (2024-2026)
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Construction Law (2026)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Liability Concerns for Architects, Engineers and Construction Professionals: Pennsylvania Architects, Engineering & Construction Defect Issues, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, July 2015
    • “Stating a Claim for Negligent Misrepresentation for a Design Professional’s Supply of Information,” Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 2. June 2016
    • Case Law Alerts, Regular Contributor, 2010-present
    • “The Federal Courts Require Complaints To State A Factually 'Plausible' Claim, And Factually 'Conceivable' (Speculative) Claims May Be Dismissed In The Pleadings Stage,” Defense Digest, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2008
    • “New Jersey: Parental Immunity For 'Negligent' Failure To Supervise Claim Calls For Case-By-Case Analysis Of Defense Strategy, Liability Evaluation And Coverage Determinations,” Defense Digest, Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2006
    • Mediated a favorable settlement of less than $1M for an Architectural firm in a high rise to condominium conversion project wherein the Owner claimed damages in excess of $4.5M for delays and cost increases caused by Architect errors & omissions and negligent construction administration.  The result was obtained at mediation in part due to use of document management and search technology through which it was argued that the results showed that Owner had intentionally withheld or destroyed some pertinent documents that were likely favorable to Architect and went against Owner's credibility.
    • Mediated a favorable settlement for a large Architectural firm that involved construction of an addition to a county prison. The County claimed $4.6M in damages for delays and cost increases, mostly due to negligent construction administration. The Architectural firm had formed a joint venture. Negotiations resulted in a $2M settlement, to which our client only contributed $300K as we were able to show that the substantial majority of the damages claimed pertained to the scope of activities performed by the joint venture partner.
    • Successfully obtained summary judgment dismissal of an architect on the Statute of Repose in a deck collapse/personal injury action where the settlement demand was $2.5 million.
    • Mediated a favorable settlement for an engineering firm in litigation that involved construction defect and delay claims in multiple projects for a chain store owner. Owner's demand against the contractor and three design professionals was $10, million. After two days of mediation, the case settled for an amount well in excess of $2 million, but our client contributed only $170,000.
    • Mediated a favorable settlement for an architect in a design error/construction delay/abandonment claim wherein a $1.3 million claim was resolved for $400,000 without litigation and without discovery expenses being incurred.
    • Obtained a voluntary dismissal of an engineer in a catastrophic personal injury (quadriplegia) construction accident litigation in Philadelphia which has an exposure in excess of $15 million.
    • Obtained dismissal of a township engineer in a double fatality construction accident litigation wherein two workers died while installing new sewer lines in a residential development. Township engineer was joined on theory that it was responsible for design and oversight of construction of the excavated areas occupied by the workers when they were asphyxiated.
    • OSHA 10-Hour Construction Certification

Results

Successfully Defended Architect in Construction Defect Matter

We successfully defended an architect against a $7 million claim brought by a general contractor in connection with the renovation of a historic, city-block-sized building in Philadelphia. The contractor alleged design errors and sought additional damages under the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, inflating its claim to $16 million. During contentious discovery, we exposed contradictions and falsehoods in the contractor’s testimony, leading to a partial summary judgment that dismissed the bulk of claims against our client. Facing a looming trial and a remaining $4 million claim, we worked with the building owner’s counsel to convince the settlement judge of the claims’ lack of merit. The plaintiff filed for bankruptcy, and the final settlement had to be approved in the Bankruptcy Court. The case settled for just $362,500, with our client paying only $181,250—an outstanding result in a high-stakes dispute.

Six-Figure Claim Against Lighting Designer Dismissed

We obtained dismissal of a six-figure claim in Philadelphia County via preliminary objections. The plaintiff homeowner sued a lighting designer for breach of contract, negligence for $23k in remediation costs, statutory remedies for treble damages and legal fees. The plaintiff alleged the lighting designer was a home improvement contractor who violated the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA) and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The plaintiff omitted pertinent facts from the complaint. Using judicial notice, we presented facts from public records to show that the design services were performed in the construction of a new home. We argued that HICPA does not apply to new construction and that the gist of the action doctrine barred the contract claim. The court agreed, dismissed the statutory and contract claims, and remanded the $23k negligence claim to Common Pleas Court arbitration.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

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. 

Thought Leadership

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.