Nicholas D. Bowers

As a seasoned litigator, Nick has represented companies, schools and professionals across a range of disciplines in relation to civil and commercial disputes. His representative experience includes construction injury, auto and trucking accident cases as well as products and premises liability matters. Nick represents construction firms, industrial clients and others in relation to catastrophic injury claims, both pre-suit and during litigation, as well as pursuant to OSHA investigations and similar governmental inquiries. Additionally, he represents property management companies in personal injury claims by tenants due to mold exposure.

Nick’s practice also encompasses litigation stemming from construction defect and other property loss. In this regard, he regularly handles cases involving claims for alleged defect(s) and damage arising from negligence as well as the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act and Consumer Protection Law. Nick’s experience extends to shipping loss matters, including actions involving the Carmack Amendment.

Nick’s practice has grown to include the defense of school districts, municipalities and private schools in relation to allegations of abuse. He is cognizant of the complex and sensitive nature of these cases and well-versed in the applicable statutory framework.

During the course of his career, he has tried cases in a broad range of claims in both Federal and State Courts, obtaining favorable outcomes for clients at trial, arbitration and by way of summary judgment. Since 2017, Nick has been selected by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in the field of Civil Litigation Defense, a recognition awarded to no more than 2.5 percent of attorneys under the age of 40 in the region.

Nick also has experience in the area of insurance fraud (“SIU”) litigation. In this role, he handles a wide variety of auto litigation (including BI, UM/UIM and PIP) as well as premises liability matters flagged for suspected fraudulent activity.

Nick graduated from Loyola University Maryland in 2005. While at Loyola, he was a four-year starter on the NCAA Division One Men’s Tennis Team, serving as captain during his senior year. After Loyola, he was employed on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC at the United States House of Representatives. In this role, he served as staff for the Committee on Ways and Means, which is the House Committee responsible for formulating bills related to taxation and international trade.

Outside of his practice, Nick enjoys spending time with his family, experiencing the outdoors and riding the highs and lows of Philadelphia sports.

- Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 2009)
- Loyola University Maryland (B.A., 2005)
- New Jersey, 2009
- U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 2009
- Pennsylvania, 2013
- U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2014
- The Best Lawyers in America©, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2027)
- Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2017-2022)
- Pennsylvania Bar Association
- Philadelphia Bar Association
- Loyola University, Philadelphia Alumni Chapter, Board of Directors
- Pennsylvania First Party Medical Benefits (PIP): An Overview And Strategies For Effective Claims Handling, Marshall Dennehey Virtual Client Presentation, March 5, 2021
- An Overview of Pennsylvania Law for Auto & Premises Claims, Marshall Dennehey Virtual Client Presentation, February, 2021
- Accident Prevention and Investigation: Strategies for Risk Mitigation, Client Presentation, April 2017
- Pennsylvania First-Party Benefits: An Overview. Client seminar. Presented August, 2015.
- SIU and the Third-Party Liability Case: An Overview and Tactics. CLE Course. Presented July, 2015.
- "Bankruptcy Fraud—Tactics for the Effective Use of a Plaintiff’s Bankruptcy Filing in Defending Civil Claims," Defense Digest, Vol. 19, No. 4, December 2013
- "Acupuncture Billing Has PIP Carriers on Pins and Needles," SIU Perspectives, Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2013
- "Winning Legal Strategies for Combating A Prickly Problem 'Sticking' New Jersey Carriers," Defense Digest, Vol. 19, No. 2, June 2013
- Case Law Alerts, regular contributor, 2012-present
- Obtained dismissal of clients by Summary Judgment in a Philadelphia premises liability case in which we represented both the landowner and tenant. The plaintiff originally demanded $2 million, later reduced to $800,000. Although our clients were responsible for sidewalk maintenance, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony confirmed she tripped on a smaller portion of an alleged defect which was larger in other areas of the sidewalk. We successfully argued that this portion was de minimis and not actionable under Pennsylvania law. Despite a comprehensive opposition and a Motion for Reconsideration, the Court agreed with our arguments, dismissing all claims against our clients with prejudice.
- Secured dismissal with prejudice of clients (bar owners) in high value dram shop case involving the unfortunate death of an automobile occupant. Court granted defense motion and found that Plaintiff’s claims were barred as a matter of law.
- First chair trial counsel in two-week trial at Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in case involving a catastrophically injured Plaintiff and settlement demand of $25 million. The case and trial involved complex issues pertaining to post-Tincher product liability in Pennsylvania as well as successor liability and statutory employer considerations. Resolved on terms favorable to client prior to verdict.
- Secured dismissal with prejudice in significant property loss/theft case. Plaintiff alleged that his landlord stole several artifacts and other materials from him while Plaintiff was out of the country. Plaintiff testified that he filed for bankruptcy and obtained a discharge after the alleged theft. Plaintiff did not list his claim against my client on his bankruptcy petition and thus Plaintiff forfeited his post-discharge right to this “asset” (claim) per the United State Bankruptcy Code. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed case with prejudice when confronted with bankruptcy evidence and legal argument.
- Secured summary judgment in favor of large oil refinery based on argument that refinery was the owner out of possession and thus had no control over the premises and therefore had no duty of care with respect to the Plaintiff.
- Obtained defense verdict in Philadelphia premises liability matter. Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on “dirty water” which accumulated in the lobby of Defendant’s premises. Defense verdict secured based on Plaintiff’s failure to establish that Defendant had actual or constructive notice of alleged dangerous condition.

Results

View all

Victory Achieved in a Bench Trial Before the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas

We prevailed in a bench trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas before the Honorable Joshua Roberts. This case involved a declaratory judgment action prosecuted on behalf of a major vehicle rental company and their insurer. Our client sought declaratory judgment based on an investigation which revealed material misrepresentations in association with the presentation of claims. Following trial, the court entered declaratory relief, voiding the applicable policy ab initio and terminating coverage.

Turf War - Summary Judgment for Synthetic Turf Field Installer

We obtained summary judgment in the Philadelphia, PA Court of Common Pleas in a case involving the alleged defective design and installation of a synthetic turf field. Our client was the alleged installer of a turf field located at a popular venue for recreational athletics. The plaintiff sustained a full tear of his right ACL, a complex tear of the medial meniscus and partial tear of the IT band when he tripped on an exposed seam in the turf. Discovery revealed that a flood occurred during turf installation, arguably impacting the outcome. Nevertheless, the court granted our motion for summary judgment premised on an argument that the plaintiff could not establish a deviation from the standard of care for turf installation in the absence of qualified expert testimony.

Thought Leadership

View all

Defense Digest

Change Is in the Air: A Shift in Pennsylvania Judge’s Role in Jury Selection Effective April 1, 2025

March 1, 2025

Key Points: Effective April 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has amended Pa.R.C.P. 220.3, pertaining to voir dire of jurors. Amended Rule 220.3(a) now provides: “Judge’s Presence Required. Voir dire of prospective jurors shall be conducted, and the jurors shall be selected, in the presence of a judge, unless the judge’s presence is waived by all parties with the consent of the court.” The right to a trial by jury is a hallmark of the justice system in the United States. Juries consist of eight or twelve individuals from a given geographic area, generally lacking legal training, who are asked to decide facts and render verdicts, often of great consequence to the litigants. While jurors must follow the directions of the court, each juror has broad discretion in deciding, among other things, whether or not to believe a witness, how heavily to weigh competing evidence, and in determining whether they are or are not persuaded by arguments of counsel. In light of this, it is perhaps rightly said that many cases are won or lost during jury selection. In Pennsylvania, attorney control of jury composition is generally limited to voir dire and peremptory challenges. Traditionally, voir dire procedures in Pennsylvania have varied from county to county—with some counties involving judges in the process more than others. In particular, Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties, for example, generally utilized court officers who controlled the voir dire process in the absence of the judge or court reporter. Recently, however, a significant change in these procedures was adopted, with an effective date of April 1, 2025. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania amended Pa.R.C.P. 220.3, pertaining to voir dire of jurors, to include amended Rule 220.3(a), which now provides the following: “Judge’s Presence Required. Voir dire of prospective jurors shall be conducted, and the jurors shall be selected, in the presence of a judge, unless the judge’s presence is waived by all parties with the consent of the court.” (Emphasis added.) The adoption of amended Pa.R.C.P. 220.3 was preceded by the case of Trigg v. Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, 187 A.3d 1013 (Pa. Super 2018), which involved an Allegheny County trial where jury selection occurred in the presence of a court clerk as opposed to the trial judge. The plaintiff appealed the jury verdict on, among others, the basis that three jurors should have been stricken for cause due to bias, as evidenced in voir dire, which occurred outside of the presence of the trial judge. The appellant argued the court’s decision not to strike was reversible error, while the appellees took the position that the trial court was entitled to the palpable error deference standard announced in McHugh v. Proctor & Gamble, 776 A.2d 266 (Pa. Super. 2001). Thus, no error warranting overturning the verdict occurred. The Trigg court took note of the fact that jury selection took place outside of the presence of the judge thus, depriving the trial court of the opportunity to assess the credibility of the proposed jurors to any extent beyond reading a transcript. Accordingly, per Trigg, the trial judge had no greater insight into the credibility of the proposed jurors—having not viewed the questioning live and, thus, lacked insight into the reactions of the proposed jurors to the questioning, including hesitation, eye movement or other physical manifestations impacting credibility—than the appellate court. Therefore, McHugh deference was not warranted. The Superior Court overturned the verdict accordingly. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court took up the case on appeal from the Superior Court in Trigg v. Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, 229 A.3d 269 (Pa. 2020). While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the issue in question had been waived due to counsel’s failure to object to the jury selection proceeding in the absence of the judge, the Supreme Court still found the procedure problematic, leading to adoption of amended Pa.R.C.P. 220.3. Amended Rule 220.3 will likely lead to greater uniformity in the jury selection process across counties in Pennsylvania. Unless waived by the parties, voir dire must now occur in the presence of a judge. It is important for practitioners to understand that each party is entitled to have the judge present for voir dire, and this right should not be waived absent an affirmative decision to do so approved by a client. The Amended Rule may also assist litigants in the preservation of appellate issues, including those relative to a trial court’s decision to strike or decline to strike a juror for cause. The judge will be present along with a court reporter. *Nick is a member of our Casualty Department. He works in our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, office. Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 1, March 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.