.

Peggy Smith Bush

Shareholder

PSBush@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Peggy Smith Bush

Peggy is a shareholder in the Casualty Department and an accomplished litigator, advocate, and counselor with more than 23 years of experience. She focuses her practice on defending corporations, large self-insureds, and public entities in cases involving negligence, transportation and trucking liability, and premises liability. Born and raised in North Alabama, Peggy is known for pairing strategic, results-oriented litigation with professionalism, civility, and a practical approach to problem-solving.

Peggy routinely defends claims arising from motor vehicle accidents, premises liability, product liability, negligent security, and general liability. Her broad experience also extends to commercial matters—such as breach of contract and indemnification—as well as code compliance, environmental toxic torts, crisis management, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, negligent hiring and retention, and ADA accessibility claims, including complex website accessibility disputes. She also brings more than a decade of experience in public entity defense, with extensive knowledge of Florida’s Public Records Act, Sunshine Law, sovereign immunity, statutory limitations, fee-shifting provisions, and compliance and enforcement issues. She regularly works alongside risk management professionals on investigations, litigation, and risk avoidance strategies.

Peggy began her career at a respected Orlando defense firm, gaining valuable trial experience before becoming a founding shareholder of Southern Trial Counsel | PLC in 2010, where she also served as managing partner. Her legal career is rooted in a broader 40-year career working with and for businesses, which began in television and radio before moving into the financial industry, where she held Series 7, Series 6, and Series 63 licenses as a stockbroker. While working her way through law school, Peggy clerked for the in-house general counsel of an international restaurant company headquartered in Orlando. Today, she is recognized with Martindale-Hubbell’s highest rating (5.0/5.0 Preeminent©), and is also a Florida Supreme Court Certified Mediator and a Certified Claims and Litigation Management Professional.

Outside of the courtroom, Peggy has been married to her husband, Stephen, since 1985. They live in Orlando with their twin boys, Jack Hunter and Finn, and their calico cat, Harlie. Peggy treasures family time, enjoys music, cooking, and reading, and is dedicated to mentoring the next generation of attorneys.

    • Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2002)
    • University of North Alabama (B.S., 1984)
    • Florida
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit
    • Supreme Court of the United States
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2023-2026)
    • Florida Trend Legal Elite NOTABLE Women Leaders in Law (2024)
    • Barry University School of Law Outstanding Achievement Alumni Award, 2017
    • Florida Elite-Civil Trial by Florida Trend Magazine (2013)
    • Florida Super Lawyers Rising Star (2010-2012)
    • Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Court Mediator
    • Litigation Management Institute, Graduate 2013 (CLMP)
    • University of North Alabama 2023 Alumni Award for Public Service
    • WTS International Executive Signature Leadership Program
    • Alabama Federation of Women's Clubs (AFWC), 1992-Present
    • American Bar Association
    • Central Florida Association for Women Lawyers - Awards Chair (2019-2020)
    • Florida Association for Women Lawyers
    • Florida Bar Association - Standing Committee on Mental Health & Wellness of Florida Lawyers, Senior Lawyers Committee (2017-2025), Animal Law Section
    • The George C. Young First Central Florida American Inns of Court - Master Level
    • GFWC du Midi Woman's Club, 1992-Present
    • GFWC Oviedo Woman's Club, 2025-Present
    • International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) - In-House and Law Firm Management Committee; Product Liability Committee; Transport Committee
    • National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms
    • Orange County Bar Association - In-House and General Counsel Committee, Professionalism Committee, Mentorship Program
    • Public Risk Management Association (PRIMA)
    • Transportation Lawyers Association (TLA) - Co-Chair of Diversity and Inclusion Subcommittee; Executive Committee
    • WTS International, Central Florida
    • Mock Trial, Trial Run, Tabletop Role Playing – Guilty or Not Guilty?, Bus Industry Safety Council (BISC) Annual Summer Meeting, Orlando, FL, July 22, 2024
    • "Current Employment Law Issues in Trucking & Transportation Litigation," AM Best Insurance Law Podcast, June 4, 2024
    • Rules of the Trucking Industry: Staying on Track!, Transportation Lawyers Association (TLA) Annual Conference - Virtual, June 24th, 2021

Thought Leadership

View all

How to Get Your Business Relationships – and Yourself – Back on Track After a Year of Isolation

February 23, 2021

It is not surprising that after months of dealing with unprecedented challenges people are personally and professionally hitting a wall. The title of this article was chosen delicately because most of us are tired of reflecting on 2020. Even so, there is an intrinsic value in reflecting on the challenges we have overcome and how they changed us. In speaking with colleagues across a variety of industries, the emotion expressed most often was a sense of feeling misplaced in their own lives. Not lost – misplaced. As weeks turned into months and now months have turned into a new year, the new normal of everyone working and living almost exclusively in a remote environment has challenged networking, socializing and bonding, and it has strained relationships. To put it simply, we are tired. In the past, challenges may have gotten us off track but this time we feel like we lost the train. A simple truth: we are the train.

News

View all

Events

View all

Speaking Engagement

International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) Corporate Counsel Committee Webinar

April 9, 2026

Peggy Smith Bush

Firm Highlights

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees

Marshall Dennehey Welcomes Special Counsel David Farkouh and Michele P. Rannie to New York City Office

News

Marshall Dennehey Welcomes Special Counsel David Farkouh and Michele P. Rannie to New York City Office

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

News

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

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.