.

Gregory J. Kelley

Shareholder

GJKelley@mdwcg.com

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 (2026-2027)
    • 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

View all

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.

News

View all

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. 

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.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

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.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

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.

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.

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.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed.