.

Patrick T. Reilly

Co-Chair of the Hospitality & Liquor Liability Practice

Co-Chair, Asbestos & Mass Tort Litigation

PTReilly@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Patrick T. Reilly

Patrick manages the firm’s asbestos and toxic tort practice in western Pennsylvania. His practice includes serving as local counsel, trial counsel and national coordinating counsel for various insured and self-insured product manufacturers. Additionally, he represents both major corporate clients and small businesses in product liability, toxic tort and complex environmental and commercial litigation, including defending talc, asbestos, and negligence claims.

In addition to his work in toxic tort defense, Patrick is a member of the firm’s Casualty Department. In this capacity he defends all types of general and commercial liability cases, ranging from product liability cases to fall downs. He has worked defending bars and restaurants in both general liability and liquor liability matters for more than ten years.

Patrick also continues to represent automobile manufacturers, car dealerships, and automobile service facilities in claims made for breach of warranty, fraud, unfair trade practices and negligence.

Patrick has both jury and non-jury trial experience. He has tried hundreds of cases within the Commonwealth's Compulsory Arbitration system.

    • Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University (J.D., 2006)
    • Saint Joseph's University (B.A., magna cum laude, 2003)
    • Pennsylvania, 2006
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2006
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (2024-2026)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2013-2021)
    • Pittsburgh Legal Diversity & Inclusion Coalition, Ally-Ready Training Program, 2021
    • Allegheny County Bar Association
    • Northside Common Ministries, Advisory Board Member (2013 - 2019)
    • Pittsburgh Legal Diversity & Inclusion Coalition: Retention Committee Member, 2021 – Present; Survey Committee Member, 2022 – Present
    • Serving Safely: Navigating Liquor Liability in Hospitality, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, September 16, 2025
    • Liquor Liability: The Do’s and Don’ts, Marshall Dennehey Client Event, August 2025
    • Serving Safely: Navigating Liquor Liability in Hospitality, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, May 28, 2025
    • Serving Safely: Navigating Liquor Liability in Hospitality, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, February 25, 2025
    • Liquor Liability Do’s and Don’ts: Implementing a Safe Alcohol Service Program for Resorts, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, November 14, 2024
    • Liquor Liability: The Do’s and Don’ts, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, August 2024
    • Pursuing and Defending Attorney Fee Claims, Allegheny County Bar Association, Pittsburgh, PA, August 30, 2022
    • The New Marketing Tool—Creating a Podcast that People Want to Hear, Pennsylvania Defense Institute (PDI) 2021 Annual Conference, Bedford Springs, PA., July 16, 2021
    • Defending Liquor Liability and Hospitality Claims, “On a Roll” Podcast with Nichole Perzel, produced by W.N. Tuscano Agency, March, 2021
    • What's Trending in Liquor Law? Help Your Bars and Restaurants Mitigate Their Risk, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, February 9th, 2021
    • Voir Dire and Jury Selection in 2020, Allegheny County Bar Association Civil Litigation Section - Webinar, August 18, 2020
    • Liquor Law and Insurance Needs: Risk Management for Bars and Restaurants, Client Hospitality & Liquor Lines Team Virtual Conference, June 18, 2020
    • PENNSYLVANIA Liquor Law AND Insurance Needs: Risk Management for Bars and Restaurants,  Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, January 13, 2020
    • Voir Dire and Jury Selection in Allegheny County,  Pennsylvania Defense Institute, December 4, 2019
    • Civil Litigation Skills Training - Conducting Voir Dire in Allegheny County, Allegheny County Bar Association Civil Litigation Section, April 8, 2019
    • Jury Selection Process in the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Women’s Bar Association of Western Pennsylvania, June 21, 2018
    • Civil Litigation Skills Training - Conducting Voir Dire in Allegheny County, Allegheny County Bar Association Civil Litigation Section, April 5, 2018
    • Discoverability and Proper Use of Claim Notes, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, October 2011
    • Obtained voluntary dismissal of a dram shop death case where he was able to prove prior to the filing of a complaint that plaintiff's decedent was intoxicated as a result of liquor contained within his home, rather than alcohol allegedly purchased at the client's bar.
    • Prepared successful Motion for Summary Judgment in a conveyor belt death case in which we represented the company who purchased the assets of the bankrupt corporation which manufactured the conveyor belt at issue.
    • Prepared successful Motion for Judgment on the pleadings in a death case on behalf of a methadone clinic. Plaintiff's theory was that plaintiff's decedent was killed by a driver who had been either improperly treated at the methadone clinic or had been improperly permitted to drive following treatment. He successfully argued that no duty exists to a third party motorist under such circumstances under Pennsylvania law.
    • Has handled well over 50 compulsory arbitration cases in counties throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
    • Has utilized ADR when appropriate, referring a number of cases to mediation where appropriate.
    • Has assisted in the handling of numerous cases against bars filed by plaintiffs who alleged improper service of alcohol, either to themselves or to other patrons. These cases have involved fatal motor vehicle accidents, assaults, suicide and other significant and serious injuries.

Results

View all

Claims Against Bar/Restaurant Dismissed in Dram Shop Action

The plaintiff spent the afternoon at our client’s restaurant/bar before driving ten minutes to his local Country Club to continue celebrating his birthday. Ninety minutes after he arrived at the Club, he fell down the stairs and suffered a severe brain injury. His Blood Alcohol Content was roughly three times the legal limit. The plaintiff had previously worked as a high-end custom wood finisher but is now unable to see color, among having other deficits, and he is alleged to be fully disabled.  After more than 20 depositions, and despite varying reports as to what the plaintiff had to drink at our client’s establishment, we were able to argue that he showed no signs of visible intoxication prior to the last service of alcohol by our client. Our motion was strenuously opposed by the Country Club, who argued there was testimony that the plaintiff appeared intoxicated upon his arrival at the Club. The court agreed with our argument that this was insufficient evidence for a jury to find that our client served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated plaintiff, and, as such, all claims against our client were dismissed and summary judgment was granted.

Thought Leadership

View all

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Navigating the New Era of Dram Shop Liability: Marshall Dennehey’s Hospitality & Liquor Liability Practice Group Steps Forward

September 1, 2025

Dram shop liability, or liquor liability, is civil liability—typically for bars and restaurants—for personal injuries arising out of service of alcohol to either a minor or a visibly-intoxicated patron. And it is quite the hot topic these days. An article about “dram shop” cases recently graced the front page of The Philadelphia Inquirer; quite a far stretch from what has long been a somewhat overlooked and largely ignored area of personal injury litigation.  Marshall Dennehey has been handling liquor liability claims since the days when the most common question we fielded was, “What is dram shop?” These cases have always had the potential to inflame juries due to the volatile nature of the fact patterns and circumstances surrounding alcohol-related incidents. But now, in the era of the “nuclear verdict,” juries are rendering astronomical verdicts in these cases.  Philadelphia attorney, M. Scott Gemberling, and King of Prussia attorney, Tony Michetti, have been at the forefront of this litigation for the past 40 years. With Tony’s recent retirement, and Scott’s transition to senior counsel at the firm, we have been appointed co-chairs of the firm’s longstanding Hospitality & Liquor Liability Practice Group. While it may seem like a “new era” here we have been learning from and working with Scott and Tony for the past two decades. And while Scott and Tony have tried plenty of liquor liability cases to verdict, their true legacy is a forward-thinking strategy focused on smart, fixed, and speedy investigation of claims, along with an evaluation of early mediation. The hope is to avoid, where possible, the nuclear verdicts that are increasingly splashed across the front pages of newspapers. This is the legacy we intend to carry forward. Drawing on our many years of experience, our team is here to handle any type of accident that accompanies or is related to the service of alcohol. While the classic “dram shop” scenario involves the patron who leaves a bar or restaurant and gets into a motor vehicle accident while intoxicated, that is just one scenario. We have handled cases against bars and restaurants arising out of numerous types of injuries that can occur, including cases involving:  •    Alcohol poisoning •    Bar fights •    Car accidents •    Motorcycle accidents •    Shootings •    Stabbings •    Suicide •    University fraternity/sorority events Additionally, the members of our group routinely present on the topics of safe service of alcohol, as well as risk management best practices, to help avoid and protect against claims and litigation. Whether you are faced with a lawsuit involving alcohol, or whether you are a business looking to avoid such a situation, our Hospitality & Liquor Liability Practice Group is here to help.  Patrick and Carolyn co-chair our Hospitality & Liquor Liability Practice Group. Patrick works in our Pittsburgh, PA office, and Carolyn works in our Mount Laurel, NJ office.   Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 3, September 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.

Protecting Your Bar From Claims in the Wake of ‘Mortimer’

February 15, 2023

Even if the licensee is apportioned a minimal amount of liability and the AIP is assigned the majority of liability, the licensee will nevertheless be on the hook for the entire judgment. A savvy plaintiff will strive to establish dram shop liability against the licensee, recognizing that oftentimes the licensee may have more assets that could be used toward a judgment than those of an AIP.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Thought Leadership

Ohio Supreme Court Holds That a Binding Appraisal Award May Not Be Set Aside Absent Specific Evidence of Manifest Mistake or Fraud

On July 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a rare opinion on the binding effect of an appraisal award in a property insurance policy.  The Court in One Church held: A binding appraisal award will not be set aside unless an error is so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—To plead a claim of mistake with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B), facts alleged in a complaint must constitute the elements of mistake—Allegation that additional, hidden damage was discovered after appraisal award failed to state a claim of mistake that could justify setting aside binding appraisal.  The case arose out of a claim brought by One Church against its insurer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company for roof damage from a storm. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the parties agreed to submit the matter to appraisal. The two appraisers inspected the building, and both appraisers agreed that the damages were $313,271.98. The insurer paid the agreed appraised amount.  Thereafter, the insured submitted a claim for an additional $206,663.09 in damages. The insured argued that these additional damages were not discovered until after the repairs began, and that they should be permitted to submit an additional claim, even though there had already been a binding appraisal of damages. The insurer refused to pay the additional damages, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  In the trial court, the insurer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the binding appraisal award barred any further claims. The insured took the position that additional hidden damages could not be discovered until after the repairs began, and therefore there was a mutual mistake. The trial court dismissed the case on the insurer’s motion, because there was no “evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake”. The Court of Appeals agreed that appraisal awards are generally binding, but noted that an appraisal award can be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the insured had pled mistake with sufficient particularity. The insurer appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court decision dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court found that since the insured had already demanded appraisal, and the appraisal award was binding, “something more than error of judgement, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake” must be pled with particularity, and proven for the insured to override the appraisal award. Since the complaint did not allege fraud or manifest mistake with sufficient particularity, something more than a mere error of judgment, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim.  The complaint in this case did not challenge the appraisal award. It pled that additional damages were discovered that were not apparent when the appraisal was done. It did not specify “who discovered the damages, how they were discovered, where they were found, why they were previously hidden, or why they rise to the level of a manifest mistake that the “appraiser would have corrected...had it been called to his attention”. Id at ¶22 citing Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases deciding the effect of appraisal awards are unusual. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in One Church relies primarily on 19th century case law for its conclusion. This emphasizes the fact that there is minimal case law deciding the effect of binding appraisal clauses in property insurance policies, and makes this case all the more significant. A lengthy dissent was written by Justice Fisher, who would have affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding the case for a decision on the merits. Of course, the decision works both ways, and an insurer dissatisfied with a binding appraisal award will likewise be without further recourse absent evidence of corruption, fraud, misfeasance, or manifest mistake, which must be pled with particularity. To constitute manifest mistake, “the mistake must be of such character that the arbitrator or appraiser would have corrected it had it been called to his attention.”  Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970).  The majority opinion does not specifically identify what would have been sufficient to plead mistake with particularity, or if the insured could have amended the complaint to overcome the deficiencies. The dissent argues that this was not really a case alleging mistake, but rather a question of contract interpretation. The insured did not challenge the appraisal, but argued that the hidden damage was not part of the appraisal, and the appraisal only covered the known damages.  However, this argument did not carry the day with the majority.  *Thomas F. Glassman, a shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s Cincinnati office, filed a brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, in support of the insurer’s position.

Thought Leadership

State of Insurance: Q2 Notes From Pennsylvania

Thought Leadership

The Best Defense is Already in the File: Documentation in Civil Rights Litigation

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

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. 

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial