.

Paul D. Krepps

Senior Counsel

PDKrepps@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Paul D. Krepps

A significant amount of Paul’s practice is concentrated in the area of civil rights litigation. He defends police officers, public officials, corrections officers and administrators, teachers and school district administrators, children and youth case workers, as well as their respective municipal entities, in state and federal court in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. These areas of practice include representing clients before inquest and grand jury proceedings and before administrative proceedings.

Paul has been utilized to perform audits of municipal departments, such as police departments and 911 call centers, and has conducted internal investigations. He has also provided consultation to numerous municipalities regarding the operational aspects of their police departments. His nearly 10 years of experience in law enforcement provide him with a unique perspective, particularly in the numerous matters he has litigated involving the use of Tasers.

Additionally, Paul has litigated a wide array of professional liability and product liability cases in West Virginia, including the defense of real estate agents, insurance brokers, logging cases, correctional facilities and civil rights matters. Among his West Virginia cases was the defense of Weirton Steel Corporation and Wheeling Downs and the City of Huntington. Paul has also represented a number of private and public employers in employment matters.

Paul was designated as lead defense counsel for all suits arising out of the Pittsburgh “G-20.” In this role he successfully completed training provided by the Department of Homeland Security in both the Basic and Command courses in Managing Civil Actions and Threat Incidents (MCATI).

In 2015, Paul was commissioned by the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police to assist in developing a policy and training program on the use of Body Worn Cameras (BWC). As a member of the BWC Committee, Paul provides recommendations to members of the Pennsylvania legislature in drafting legislation to govern the use of BWCs by police officers.

In 1979 Paul earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Administration of Justice from the Pennsylvania State University. For nearly 12 years before attending the Duquesne University School of Law, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Paul was a police officer. He served in Elizabeth Township, Pennsylvania, and then in the cities of West Palm Beach and Palm Beach, Florida. He served as a uniform police officer and field training officer, became certified as a crime scene analyst, and was part of the Major Crimes Unit. Paul was recognized as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and the science of fingerprints in both state and federal courts in Florida.

    • Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University (J.D., 1994)
    • The Pennsylvania State University (B.S., 1979)
    • Pennsylvania, 1994
    • West Virginia, 1995
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of West Virginia, 1998
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio, 2016
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of West Virginia, 2017
    • Academy of Trial Lawyers of Allegheny County
    • Allegheny County Bar Association
    • Municipal Police Officer Education and Training Commission (MPOETC)
    • Pennsylvania State Bar Association
    • West Virginia State Bar Association
    • Qualified Immunity and Its Significance in Civil Rights Cases, Pennsylvania Defense Institute 2022 Annual Conference & CLE Program, Bedford, Pennsylvania, July 14, 2022
    • Impact of Protection from Abuse Orders: A Case Study, Law Against Violence Continuing Legal Education Program, Allegheny County Bar Association, June 27, 2022
    • Litigation & Trial Considerations When Representing/Defending Law Enforcement, NAPO’s Annual 2021 Legal Seminar, West Palm Beach, FL, October 4, 2021
    • Hot Topics in 2020 Law Enforcement Liability, Client Webinar, December 2020
    • Mass Disturbances: Law and Litigation, Allegheny County Law Enforcement, March 2019
    • The Wrong Side of the Caption, 42 USC 1983 Turns the Tables on Prosecutors, Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association/Institute, July 2015
    • Hot Topics for Local Law Enforcement, Washington County Chiefs of Police Association, May 2015
    • Beyond Asking Questions at a Deposition, November 2014
    • Challenging §8553 - Tort Claims Act Damages Cap and Damages Recoverable Under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, September 2013
    • Employment Liability in the Cyber Age, Marshall Dennehey / AIG Employment Seminar, Pittsburgh, PA, May 2, 2013
    • Leadership Course for Law Enforcement Executives, Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association, December 2011
    • Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, the Danger in Enforcing the Wiretap Act, Police Departments from Beaver, Allegheny and Butler Counties, August 2011
    • Liability Issues for Municipalities Hosting National Events: Including the Development of Security Plans, Training and Equipping Police Officers, and Executing Law Enforcement and Security Functions During These Complex Events, City of Honolulu, Hawaii, January 2010
    • Exposure in Education Cases Related to Due Process and Bullying, Client Seminar, August 2010
    • Assisted the Municipal Police Officers Education and Training Commission, Pennsylvania State Police - preparation and training to training officers (2006, 2008)
    • Constitutional Litigation in the Current Political Climate, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, June 2008
    • Section 1983 Civil Rights, Continuing Legal Education, Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Law Enforcement Issues and Liability, Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors & Delaware Valley Insurance Trust, October 2008
    • Implications of Scott v. Harris on Police Pursuits and Beyond, Lorman Education Services
    • Development of a Critical Incident Protocol - City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, City of Pittsburgh Law Department, various Chiefs of Police Organizations
    • Effective Law Enforcement Through Police Accountability - City of Pittsburgh and various municipal law enforcement agencies
    • Police Rights and Liabilities - Various Chiefs of Police Organizations
    • Police Accountability - Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors and various police departments
    • Effective Witness Preparation - Continuing Legal Education for in-house lawyer training
    • Terrorism and An Analysis of the Events of 9/11 - American Inns of Court and University of Pittsburgh
    • Workplace Violence - Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh
    • Disability of Deriliction? - Claims Management Advisory Board Seminar for a major municipal insurance carrier
    • Litigating an Uninsured Auto Case in West Virginia - Maryland Auto Insurance Fund
    • Civil / Criminal Forfeiture and RICO - University of Pittsburgh
    • Police and Drug Enforcement - University of Pittsburgh
    • Immigration and Law Enforcement - University of Pittsburgh
    • Crime Scene Investigation - University of Pittsburgh and various law enforcement agencies
    • Property Crimes - University of Pittsburgh
    • Organized Crime; Asian and African American - University of Pittsburgh
    • Organized Crime; Russia - University of Pittsburgh
    • Community Consideration of Policing Immigrant Populations - University of Pittsburgh
    • Probation and Parole - St. Vincent College
    • Crime Prevention and Property Crimes - St. Vincent College
    • Introduction to Criminology - Beaver County Community College
    • "Close Judicial Scrutiny of Qualified Immunity And Municipal Liability In An Excess Use-Of-Force Death Case," Defense Digest, Vol. 10, No. 4, December 2012
    • "Palsfraf Revisited - Brisbine v. Outside Inn School of Experiential Education," Defense Digest, Vol. 8, No. 3, September 2002 and Lawyer's Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, February 7, 2003
    • Selected as lead defense counsel for all litigation arising out of the Group of 20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ Conference (G20), which occurred in Pittsburgh on September 24 and 25, 2009. In this capacity, Paul represented literally hundreds of police officers from police departments in Pittsburgh and numerous other cities throughout the United States in this litigation. Cases filed include numerous First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
    • Successfully defended a case in which two police officers Tasered a suicidal man a total of seven times before he could be disarmed. Summary judgment was granted as to the entire case.
    • Successfully defended two separate death cases brought under the State Created Danger Theory. In one case, brought in state court, the decedent left the scene of a minor traffic accident and, upon arriving home, committed suicide. In the other, filed in federal court, a police officer stopped a suspect leaving the scene of a domestic incident. Twenty minutes after leaving the scene of the traffic stop, the suspect died in a one-car accident. His blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit. Both suits were dismissed by way of summary judgment.
    • A jury returned a defense verdict in a case in which a corrections officer was accused of using excessive force to break up a fight between inmates.
    • A jury returned a defense verdict in a case in which a logger was accused of unlawful timbering practices.
    • Successful defense of a mandamus action against a sewer authority in which the authority was accused of imposing arbitrary standards for sewer hook-up in a case that had the potential of effecting 28,000 customers.
    • A jury returned a defense verdict in a case in which a dog track was accused of negligence in the deaths of racing dogs and in which the dog owners were permitted to present damages in the amount of $3.6 million.
    • A jury returned a defense verdict in a case in which a police officer was involved in a police pursuit which ended with the death of the individual being pursued and where the plaintiff, an innocent third party, suffered the loss of a leg and catastrophic brain injuries. This was the second defense verdict in this case, the first verdict rendered at the close of a summary jury trial.
    • A district court judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff's case in a matter in which a police officer accidentally shot and killed the plaintiff's decedent. The appeal of the dismissal was upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in which the court focused on whether a prima facie case existed against the municipality for failing to require its officers to carry less than lethal weapons.
    • Tonya L. Carswell, et ux. v. Borough of Homestead, et al, 381 F.3d 235 (3rd. Cir. 2004)
    • Certified I.A.I. Crime Scene Analyst
    • Florida State Certified Police Field Training Officer

Firm Highlights

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

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

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

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. 

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Recreational Immunity for County Under Landowners' Liability Act

In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc. v. Middlesex County Parks Department, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of Middlesex County Parks Department, holding that the county was immune from liability under New Jersey's Landowners' Liability Act (LLA), notwithstanding its failure to plead the immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Complaint. The case arose from injuries sustained by fourteen-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Kuzma, while playing basketball at Spring Lake Park in South Plainfield on August 23, 2019. The plaintiff observed a crack in the basketball court before beginning to play but did not consider it dangerous. During the game, his foot became caught in the crack, causing him to fall and suffer a significant ankle injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted in ongoing physical limitations and deprived him of the opportunity to play collegiate basketball. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendants negligently maintained the basketball court. Although the county did not assert LLA immunity as an affirmative defense in its answers, it later moved for summary judgment on that basis. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the county had waived the defense by failing to plead it. The county maintained that the plaintiff had received sufficient notice of its intent to rely on the LLA through discovery and therefore suffered no unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, concluding that the county should be permitted to invoke statutory immunity notwithstanding its failure to formally plead the defense. Relying heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court's guidance in Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen, holding a county park was subject to the immunity of the LLA, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the county's failure to plead LLA immunity did not preclude reliance on the defense under the circumstances presented. The court determined that the plaintiff had received adequate notice of the immunity claim through discovery and that permitting the defense furthered the public-policy objectives embodied in the LLA. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's injury and the general societal interest in maintaining parks and recreational facilities in a safe condition. However, the court emphasized that both the legislature and the New Jersey Supreme Court have expressed a clear policy choice to limit liability for public and private landowners who make recreational property available for public use. The decision reinforces the courts' continuing adherence to the Landowners' Liability Act and the principle that recreational lands and facilities should be broadly protected from liability exposure, even in cases involving significant personal injuries.

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case