.

Timothy G. Ventura

Chair, Philadelphia Professional Liability Practice Group

Portrait of Timothy G. Ventura

Tim is Chair of the Philadelphia Professional Liability Practice Group and the Insurance Agents and Brokers Liability Group. He focuses his practice on the defense of errors and omissions claims brought against insurance agents and brokers of all sizes. He also oversees and manages the day-to-day operations of a broad range of professional liability attorneys.  

While Tim’s practice is focused on defending insurance agents and brokers, he also frequently defends attorneys, corporate directors and officers, and a variety of real estate professionals, including title agents, appraisers, brokers, home inspectors and lenders in E&O and malpractice claims brought against them. He has successfully tried multiple cases as first chair counsel resulting in jury trial defense verdicts and tried dozens of arbitrations in Pennsylvania.  Tim also has experience defending product liability matters.

In addition to his civil litigation practice, Tim is a frequent speaker and author of publications on various topics regarding Insurance Agent/Broker Errors & Omissions, for clients, brokers, industry trade associations and professional liability insurers.

In 2003, Tim graduated from Boston College with a Bachelor of Arts in political science.  During the fall semester of his junior year at BC, he clerked for Senator John Kerry (D-MA).  Tim then attended Temple University Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia, PA, where he earned his juris doctor in 2006.  He achieved various honors while at Temple Law School, including: Temple University Law Faculty Scholarship recipient; Outstanding Oral Advocacy in Trial Advocacy; and Distinguished Classroom Performance – Civil Procedure.  He was also a staff member of the Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review.

While attending Temple Law, Tim also worked part-time as a law clerk with Liberty Mutual Insurance Group in the Philadelphia Legal Department.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 2006)
    • Boston College (B.A., 2003)
    • New Jersey, 2006
    • Pennsylvania, 2006
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • American Bar Association
    • Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS)
    • The Seven-Ten Split Mock Trial: Navigating Agent Errors & Omissions, The Annual Professional Insurance Agents (PIA) Conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey, June 2, 2024
    • Pandemic Coverage Litigation Update / Insurance Broker Best Practices, Client Webinar, September 2022
    • The Aftermath of the Pandemic For Carriers and Agents, Client Webinar, July 2021
    • Pandemic Coverage Litigation Update - Agent E&O Wars to Come, Client Seminar, March 2021 
    • COVID 19 and Insurance Agent E&O, Best Practices, IA&B webinar, May 2020
    • Insurance Agent / Broker E&O Litigation Trends & Best Practices during COVID Crisis, Client Webinar, April 2020 
    • Insurance Agent / Broker E&O Litigation Trends & Best Practices, Client Seminar, April 2019
    • Insurance Agent / Broker E&O – Claims Prevention and Defense in 2018 and Beyond, Client webinar, February 2018
    • Mediation and Pre-Suit Claims Handling – Best Practices, Client Seminar, August 2016
    • Insurance Agent E&O Claims Prevention and Defense – The Road Ahead in 2016, Client Seminar, March 2016
    • Developments and Emerging Trends in the Legal and Insurance Areas of Cybersecurity, Client Seminar, February 2016
    • CPCU Society Webinar: Agent & Broker E&O - A New Lens for Viewing Exposures, September 18, 2015
    • Obtained a summary judgment dismissal in a Philadelphia Commerce Court commercial litigation matter. The case involved claims of unfair competition and tortious interference brought by one adult day care center against our client, a competing facility. The allegations centered on purported violations of regulations issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Aging and the Office of Long Term Living. The plaintiff’s final demand was $2 million, and no settlement offers were made before the trial court granted summary judgment.  
    • Obtained dismissal in Federal Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, for insurance broker client in a case involving liability/commercial insurance coverage claims related to lost business income as a result of government mandated closures triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.
    • Obtained summary judgment in Philadelphia County for our attorney/law firm client, dismissing a complex legal malpractice case involving claims of professional negligence and fraud that arose from an underlying personal injury litigation that concluded with a $700,000 settlement.  In the malpractice action, which involved various coverage and standard of care issues, Plaintiff sought approximately $2 million in damages.  Following discovery, the court granted our motion dismissing both the individual attorneys and firm clients with prejudice. For further details click here.
    • Obtained dismissal with prejudice of large automobile manufacturer client following motion oral argument. This case involved product liability claims regarding airbag deployment and alleged personal injuries caused by product defect.  No settlement offers made before suit was dismissed against client manufacturer. 
    • Defended insurance agency in Philadelphia Commerce Court action involving claims of professional negligence arising from the agency’s procurement of commercial insurance coverage for a hotel franchise owner.  Following a fire loss resulting in a completely rebuilt hotel property in Philadelphia, plaintiffs alleged their long-time insurance agency failed to obtain more comprehensive coverage available, including insufficient business interruption and ordinance or law coverage.  Plaintiffs also asserted breach of contract/bad faith claims against the insurer co-defendant.  With case exposure exceeding $8.5 million, following discovery and before trial, settled suit at mediation on behalf of insurance agency client with payment in the range of defense costs, a fraction of the total exposure and settlement demand.
    • Obtained jury trial defense verdict on behalf of large automobile manufacturer/distributor in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania following four-day trial involving multiple party, fact witness and experts’ testimony.
    • Obtained jury trial defense verdict on behalf of product manufacturer in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania following three-day trial involving party, witness and multiple experts' testimony.
    • Obtained non-suit judgment for insurance broker at arbitration in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
    • Obtained defense verdict for large automobile manufacturer at arbitration in Philadelphia County in a product liability suit involving fire cause and origin issues, with live expert testimony for both parties.
    • Obtained Non-Pros judgment in favor of wholesale insurance broker client in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  After serving plaintiff's counsel with letters threatening sanctions and fees under Pa.R.C.P. 1023.1, and the prospect of a retaliatory suit against plaintiff's counsel for wrongful use of civil proceedings, because plaintiff's claims against the wholesale insurance broker lacked probable cause, plaintiff's counsel promptly withdrew representation and the suit languished resulting in a Non Pros judgment with no indemnity paid.
    • Obtained favorable outcome for large construction company client at private binding arbitration in a personal injury suit with a settlement demand of $600,000.  Following successful defense at arbitration, with multiple party and witness testimony and experts, the award resulted in client paying less than cost of trial defense.
    • Assisted first chair counsel in successful jury trial in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.  Breach of contract/indemnity action representing construction manager against a sub-contractor, resulting in jury verdict recovery in excess of $750,000 on behalf of client.  Drafted successful pre-trial and post-trial motions, fact and expert witness coordination, with trial conference participation.
    • Obtained voluntary suit dismissal of plaintiff in legal malpractice suit with $2 million initial settlement demand after drafting successful Motion for Summary Judgment and procuring multiple defense expert reports on behalf of law firm and individual attorney clients.  Dispositive Motion established plaintiff's failure to prove her underlying case within the case and causation in professional negligence action, including the use of digital metadata analysis and litigation attorney expert opinion.
    • Defending for over ten years the manufacturer, designer and distributor of automobiles, motorcycles and varied power equipment in catastrophic injury, product liability and warranty actions.
    • Defending for over 8 years multiple wholesale and retail auto finance companies in commercial litigation and lender liability suits involving claims of fraud, breach of contract, professional negligence and unfair trade practices.

Results

Philadelphia Commerce Court Grants Summary Judgment, Dismissing $2M Unfair‑Competition and Tortious‑Interference Claims

We obtained summary judgment dismissal, following Oral Argument, in a Philadelphia Commerce Court commercial litigation matter involving allegations of unfair competition and tortious inference with contract and business relationships, brought by one adult day care center against our client, a competing adult day care facility.  The plaintiff’s suit stemmed from alleged violation of regulations set forth by the Pennsylvania Department of Aging and its Office of Long-Term Living. The plaintiff’s final demand was $2 million, and no settlement offers were made before the trial court granted summary judgment.

Montgomery County Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Insurance Broker

We obtained dismissal of our insurance broker client on Motion for Summary Judgment in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, on the basis of no duty breached, and lack of causation. Claimants asserted a professional negligence theory for allegedly allowing a commercial insurance policy to lapse, failing to notify the policyholder claimant of the lapse or cancellation, and allowing a subsequent gap in coverage to exist after the policy cancelled, when an underlying loss occurred. However, after completed discovery depositions and expert discovery, we successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing the policy cancelled because of the policyholder’s own failure to comply with premium audit requirements, rather than any liability or breach of standard of care by the insurance broker.

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Defending the Professionals Who Power the Insurance Industry

March 1, 2026

The Insurance Agents and Brokers Defense Practice Group at Marshall Dennehey is nationally recognized for its skillful representation of insurance professionals in complex civil litigation. With decades of collective experience, our attorneys provide sophisticated, results-driven defense to insurance agents, brokers, managing general agents, and other intermediaries facing professional liability claims. We understand the intricate regulatory frameworks, contractual obligations, and industry standards that govern the insurance marketplace, allowing us to craft defenses that reflect both legal prowess and practical business insight. Our team regularly defends clients in claims alleging negligence, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, failure to procure coverage, and errors in policy placement or renewal. We also handle disputes arising from alleged bad faith, premium miscalculations, claims denial, and compliance violations. Whether the matter involves a single claim or a multi-jurisdictional class action, our attorneys have the depth of knowledge and trial experience necessary to protect our clients’ reputations and minimize their exposure. Beyond litigation, our practice group emphasizes proactive risk management and claim prevention. We partner with insurance agencies and brokerages to conduct internal audits, develop best practices, and deliver training on evolving industry risks, emerging coverage issues, and regulatory developments. This preventative approach reflects our broader commitment to supporting our clients as trusted advisors, not just defenders, throughout the life of their businesses. At Marshall Dennehey we understand that every claim against an insurance professional carries significant professional and reputational consequences. Our clients rely on us for strategic, efficient, and discreet representation that aligns with their long-term business goals. By combining deep industry knowledge with vigorous advocacy and an unwavering commitment to service, our Insurance Agents and Brokers Defense Practice Group stands at the forefront of protecting the professionals who keep the insurance industry moving. Tim is Chair of the Professional Liability Practice Group, and he can be reached at TGVentura@MDWCG.com.

PLUS Blog

Pennsylvania Superior Court Rejects Breach of Oral Contract Claim Against Insurance Agent

January 26, 2026

While the majority of claims against insurance agents and brokers sound in tort, creative attorneys attempting to combat a two-year statute of limitations on tort claims or the affirmative defense of contributory negligence, may also plead a breach of oral contract claim. In Pennsylvania, contract claims have a four-year statute of limitations and are not barred by the doctrine of contributory negligence. Insureds’ counsel therefore have an incentive to try to plead tort and contract claims, both procedurally and substantively.

Firm Highlights

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

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.

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.