.

Michael L. Detweiler

Portrait of Michael L. Detweiler

Michael is a member of the Casualty Department where he has successfully defended matters in jurisdictions throughout Pennsylvania. Michael's past and present clients include homeowners associations (HOAs), planned communities, residential real estate agents and brokers, residential leasing agents, residential property managers, commercial real estate agents and brokers, commercial leasing agents, commercial property managers, construction companies, tour operators, travel agents, resorts, local municipalities, governmental transportation agencies, medical device manufacturers, and numerous other individuals and entities. He has also successfully defended entities and individuals in commercial and breach of contract disputes.  Michael has successfully navigated complicated homeowners' association and planned community association disputes concerning property and related assessment disputes by successfully brokering compromises and settlement agreements between the defendant-communities and unit owners in order to achieve cost-effective results for communities and carriers and has successfully defended these matters at trial when necessary.  

In his career, Michael has obtained numerous defense verdicts and summary judgments in the state and federal courts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  His extensive experience with both professional liability and casualty matters provide an invaluable advantage in representing clients in those matters which require a firm grasp of both practice backgrounds.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Michael was Assistant City Solicitor with the City of Philadelphia Law Department for two years. He defended police officers, corrections officers and various City of Philadelphia employees and agencies in civil lawsuits.

Michael graduated magna cum laude from Dickinson College in 1998 and from Boston College Law School in 2002. He is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

    • Boston College Law School (J.D., 2002)
    • Dickinson College (B.A., magna cum laude, 1998)
    • New Jersey, 2003
    • Pennsylvania, 2003
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2003
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Construction Law (2026)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star (2007-2008, 2010-2016)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Board Member, Saint Mary Interparochial School
    • An Overview of Auto Law in Pennsylvania, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, July 22, 2025
    • Travel Advisors E&O Insurance: Lessons in Liability - Panelist, Travel Professional News webinar, September 12, 2023
    • PHL Airport First Responders Training, Philadelphia International Airport, Philadelphia, PA, March 30, 2023
    • Defending Planned Community Association Cases: Directors and Officers Liability, Property, and Other Liability Issues, Engle Martin & Associates, March 2016
    • Legal Issues for Internet Travel Sellers and Travel Insurance for Industry and Consumers, Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI) Travel Law Seminar, Philadelphia, May 1, 2014
    • Insurance Agents and Brokers Best Claims Practices in Claims Administration and Underwriting, Liberty Mutual Insurance, December 2013
    • “Movement No Longer Required: Expansion of the “Operation of Motor Vehicle” Exception in Municipal Cases Since Balentine,” Defense Digest, Vol. 25, No. 2, June 2019
    • "When Accidents Happen: Legal Defenses for Travel Advisors," Travel Advisor, February 2019
    • "Top Legal Considerations for Independent Contractors," Travel Agent magazine, September 2014
    • "The Motor Vehicle Black Box," Dispute Resolution Institute: Annual Personal Injury Potpourri 2007, Co-Authored with Ralph P. Bocchino, Esq. 
    • Successfully drafted and argued Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on behalf of international tour operator in a federal court case in which plaintiff (a 35 year old man) drowned while on a fishing excursion near the coast of Costa Rica.  (The fishing excursion was booked through the tour operator).  The underlying motion was predicated on applicable tour operator liability law, maritime law, and the Death on the High Seas Act. 
    • Successfully drafted Motion to Dismiss on jurisdictional grounds on behalf of internationally renowned California golf resort that was sued by plaintiff for severe head and cognitive injuries.
    • Obtained voluntary dismissal of all claims as to tour operator sued by plaintiff for personal injuries as a result of alleged injuries stemming from an accident in a resort in Jamaica.
    • Obtained voluntary dismissal of all breach of contract claims as to local non-profit financial institution in a breach of contract civil action involving close to $1 million in disputed monies.
    • Obtained numerous defense verdicts as lead trial counsel on behalf of clients in federal court in which plaintiff alleged false arrest, excessive force, and other civil rights violations.
    • Obtained multiple summary judgments on behalf of clients in general casualty and products liability matters.

Results

Successful Trial Result Achieved in a Philadelphia Premises Liability Matter

We received a successful trial result in a premises liability matter in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff’s expert projected future surgeries and extensive life-long medical care costs of $1.25 million. Much of our defense centered on damages and demonstrating that the projected future medical care was not supported by the actual medical treatment provided. Additionally, video of the incident was used to demonstrate that the plaintiff had actual/constructive knowledge of spilled water in the premises but proceeded to walk in that area anyway. Forty percent comparative negligence was assigned to the plaintiff, and despite the plaintiff’s introduction of the medical cost projection described above, only $50,000 in future medical care was awarded by the jury. The total award, after a molded verdict, was $118,800, which our client viewed as a victory in this venue. 

Real estate agency dismissed from litigation.

The defense prevailed on a motion to dismiss our real estate agency client. The plaintiff filed counts of fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, conspiracy, conversion, invasion of privacy-false light, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel against the agency regarding an allegedly fraudulent transfer of a private residence by the co-defendant seller of the property. We filed preliminary objections, arguing that the plaintiff's claims lacked sufficient specificity and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court dismissed all claims against our client. 

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…King of Prussia Office: A Historic Legacy and a Dynamic Future of Legal Excellence

December 1, 2025

Situated in the shadow of Valley Forge and the rich history of the Revolutionary War, the King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, office is steeped in history. The office itself has a long history of servicing the counties adjacent to Philadelphia, in addition to Philadelphia. Though once located in the Montgomery County seat of Norristown, this office now sits not far from the King of Prussia Mall and an always active Top Golf facility. The office is also steeped in firm history as it has been affiliated with many of the firm’s founders and leaders through the years, including Jack Warner, Tom Brophy, Christopher Dougherty, Joe Santarone, and Wendy Bracaglia, to name a few. Today, with approximately 40 attorneys and 60 staff employees, the King of Prussia office is one of the firm’s largest branch offices and one of the largest law offices in Montgomery County. The office has long serviced Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties. We consolidated with our Doylestown and Allentown offices several years ago, and we now also service Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Lehigh, Monroe, Northampton, and Schuylkill Counties. The addition of attorneys from other offices and the acquisition of key talent from other firms through the years has created a dynamic team comprised of attorneys with numerous backgrounds, skill sets, and perspectives. The health care team has been a powerful engine for the office for years and continues to flourish. The group has long-standing client relationships with health care systems and providers throughout eastern Pennsylvania and continues to develop new relationships. Led by attorneys Robin Snyder and Donna Modestine, the group continues to grow, even with the recent retirements of several key health care attorneys in the past several years. In 2024, Gary Samms, one of the most sought-after trial attorneys in Pennsylvania, joined an already stalwart group of attorneys: Joan Ford, Joe Hoynoski, and Gabor Ovari. Recent special counsel and associate additions in the past several years include Kevin Majernik, Jonathan Landua, Evan Pentz, David McColloch, and Julianna Malloy, all of whom have joined us from other firms and have added to an already strong and highly-regarded unit.  Despite retirements of several experienced and senior attorneys in the past several years (we will sorely miss Mark Riley and Ed McGinn when they retire at year’s end) from the Casualty Department, we have pivoted and recently welcomed several talented and energetic associates—Khaliyah Pugh, Richard Lechette, and Ashley Stasak—to our core casualty group, consisting of Michele Frisbie, Michele Krengel, Tim Hartigan, Ed Tuite, and Rob Morton, in addition to those attorneys who strengthened our group after joining us from the Allentown office: Jason Banonis, Steve Keim, and Wendy O’Connor. The casualty attorneys handle a wide array of high-exposure casualty matters, ranging from construction personal injury to serious auto and premises liability matters and everything in between.  Frank Wickersham, Judd Woytek, Tony Natale, Michael Duffy, and Anna Jaoudi comprise the office’s workers’ compensation unit, which routinely achieves favorable results on behalf of their clients and is very well-regarded by the workers’ compensation bar. Tony and Anna also work in our Medicare Compliance Practice Group, providing the entire firm with an invaluable resource in reaching solutions for often complicated questions created by settlements and Medicare issues. Finally, the firm is fortunate to have a group of attorneys who handle a wide array of professional liability matters. They include Audrey Copeland, who handles appeals; Gregory Kelley, who focuses on professional liability and construction defects; Maureen Fitzgerald and Christin Kochel, who handle a wide variety of professional liability cases; and Paul Laughlin, who handles professional liability and health care cases. These added practice areas, and the skill with which these attorneys practice, ensure that the office, the firm, and our clients have access to invaluable resources and representation in numerous practice areas.  The office is defined, in large part, by the skill and talent of its attorneys, but it has had its share of characters and levity through the years, too. There has never been a shortage of social events (Top Golf, happy hours, associate dinners), games (trivia night), music (a staple on the “Class Action” tour circuit) and the occasional awkward photo of an office attorney from yesteryear. The office has always embodied one of the defining features that makes Marshall Dennehey special and unique: “A culture where humor is the great equalizer, and no one is above the friendly jest.” The office is also blessed with hard-working and talented paralegals and support staff, who are an integral part of our success and are led by our dedicated and tireless office manager, Suzie Spitko. One of the office’s primary strengths remains its versatility, both in the various practice groups that provide skilled lawyering and in its capacity to provide representation in numerous venues in eastern Pennsylvania. We have always thrived, in great part, due to our flexibility and adaptability and in bringing on new talent to continue our tradition of excellence. In many ways, the King of Prussia office serves as a microcosm of the firm at large: rich in history but poised for great things moving forward.  Mike is the managing attorney of our King of Prussia, PA office. He can be reached at 610-354-8271 or MLDetweiler@mdwcg.com.  Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 4, December 2025, 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. © 2025 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.

Firm Highlights

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

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Thought Leadership

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.