.

Todd J. Leon

Co-Chair, Insurance Services Practice

Co-Chair, Cannabis Law Practice

TJLeon@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Todd J. Leon

As Co-Chair of the firm’s Insurance Services Practice, Todd leads the group’s efforts throughout the Northeast, guiding strategy, as well as handling and overseeing matters involving insurance coverage, extra-contractual exposure, and bad faith litigation. In his role, Todd also drives key initiatives, supports practice development, and ensures the group delivers comprehensive, results-driven representation to insurers facing complex coverage disputes and high stakes bad faith claims. With nearly three decades of extensive experience, Todd has litigated a wide variety of claims at the trial and appellate levels of both the state and federal courts. Admitted to practice in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey, he splits his time between our Philadelphia and Mount Laurel offices.

Todd is particularly experienced in managing cases that involve sophisticated "risk shifting" issues, including both additional insurance coverage and contractual indemnification. He has worked on a wide array of insurance coverage matters, spanning a broad base of first- and third-party claims and policy types. Todd has counseled insurers, third-party administrators and self-insureds throughout the life cycle of a matter, from the drafting of policy language to pre-suit investigation to the drafting of coverage opinions to litigating matters through the trial and appellate courts. 

Todd lives with his wife, two children, pug (Lola) and French Bulldog (Beau) in Bucks County, PA. In his spare time, he is an avid fan of Philadelphia's professional sports teams and Rutgers basketball and football, and he plays in a modified fast-pitch, wood bat softball league. Todd is active in his synagogue, Shir Ami in Bucks County, and is a former member of its Board of Directors.

    • Rutgers Law School (J.D., 1998)
    • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (B.A., 1995)
    • New Jersey, 1998
    • Pennsylvania, 1998
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 1998
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2001
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011
    • Supreme Court of the United States, 2016
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2024
    • New Jersey Law Journal's New Leaders of the Bar (2013)
    • New Jersey Super Lawyers Rising Stars (2009-2013)
      The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
    • Claims & Litigation Management Alliance
    • Defense Research Institute
    • New Jersey Defense Association
    • Successfully represented a state-created medical malpractice insurer in a matter involving fraud in the application for an insurance policy, successfully arguing before the state Supreme Court for the remedy of voiding the policy and reforming the policy limits to $0.
    • Extensive experience representing insurers on numerous risk-shifting claims for contractual indemnification and additional insurance coverage, including in matters stemming from worksite accidents, construction defects, slip-and-falls, product liability and vendor claims, and a range of other factual scenarios.
    • Represented an insurance industry group as amicus curiae in a matter requiring interpretation of the prospective or retroactive application of a statutory amendment.
    • Defended insurers in a broad array of cases involving insurance coverage issues arising from construction defect claims arising out of residential and commercial projects.
    • Represented insurers in a variety of insurance coverage claims under automobile liability policies, including for permissive use, loading and unloading, and uninsured and underinsured motorists coverage.
    • Defended insurers and their third-party administrators against insurance coverage claims stemming from employment practices, liability, education and land use claims.
    • DeMarco v. Stoddard - A Behind the Scenes Look at the Decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on Fraud in the Application for a Medical Malpractice Insurance Policy, National Academy of Continuing Legal Education, April 2016
    • Shifting the Risk: Tips and Tools for Transferring Liabilities Via Indemnification Agreements and Insurance Procurement Obligations of Indemnitors, New Jersey Law Journal In-House CLE Seminar, November 2012

Results

View all

Summary Judgment for Insurer in UIM Recovery Case

We prevailed on a motion for summary judgment with respect to the applicability of a UIM “step down” clause. Following an accident with an underinsured tortfeasor, the underlying plaintiff sought UIM recovery under three policies, including one issued by our client with limits of $500,000. The defense successfully argued that our client’s UIM limits of $500,000 “stepped down” to the $100,000 UIM limits of the plaintiff’s own policy, pursuant to our client’s policy language. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, granted our motion. 

Thought Leadership

View all

Defense Digest

On the Pulse… Profile of the Insurance Services – Coverage and Bad Faith Litigation Practice Group

June 30, 2026

The Insurance Services – Coverage and Bad Faith Litigation Practice Group delivers comprehensive, end-to-end litigation and advisory services to national and global insurance carriers. While the group is deeply experienced in coverage and bad faith litigation, its capabilities extend well beyond traditional legal defense. Through its broader Insurance Services practice, the firm has built a dynamic suite of innovative, client-focused solutions tailored to the evolving needs of insurers operating in complex and high-risk environments. With attorneys present in jurisdictions spanning from Florida to New York, the practice group approaches each matter with a strategic, solutions-oriented mindset. Its attorneys focus not only on resolving disputes, but on proactively managing risk by developing creative strategies to control exposure, avoid litigation where possible, and transfer risk effectively. In doing so, the group remains mindful of the broader business implications for its clients, including the protection of brand integrity and competitive positioning within the insurance industry. The group’s experience encompasses the full spectrum of insurance products, including commercial, personal property, and casualty policies, professional liability coverage, health and life insurance, and workers’ compensation policies. This breadth allows the team to provide nuanced, industry-specific counsel across a wide array of coverage issues and claims scenarios. Leadership within the practice group reflects both geographic reach and subject-matter depth. Todd Leon, who has offices in Philadelphia and Mount Laurel, serves as the Northeast head, with Allison Krupp of the Camp Hill office serving as vice-chair. Michael Packer, based in Fort Lauderdale, oversees operations in the Southeast, with Danielle Robinson, also of Fort Lauderdale, as the vice chair. Together, they guide a team of approximately 20 attorneys who provide consistent, coordinated legal services across jurisdictions. The Southeast team, in particular, brings a sophisticated understanding of the unique legal and regulatory challenges associated with Florida’s insurance landscape. Across all offices, attorneys are supported by a strong network of associates, paralegals, and professional staff, enabling the group to efficiently manage even the most complex coverage disputes, including first-party property and automobile litigation. The group also benefits from the leadership and insights of Jim Cole, the former group chair, who is now the Director of the firm’s Professional Liability Department. The practice group has a proven track record of successfully representing insurers in both state and federal courts in first-party and bad faith litigation and in providing opinions on coverage issues in jurisdictions around the country. Its attorneys are well-versed in the intricacies of institutional discovery, including corporate designee, apex, and employee depositions, as well as the litigation tactics often employed by plaintiffs to drive settlement pressure. By offering strategic guidance at every stage – both pre-litigation and during active disputes – the group helps clients evaluate coverage positions, mitigate risk, and make informed decisions about resolution or trial. When litigation is unavoidable, the firm’s seasoned trial attorneys are prepared to vigorously defend even the most complex and high-exposure matters. Beyond litigation, the group offers a wide array of services designed to support insurers’ operational and strategic objectives. These include coverage consultation, coordinating counsel services, catastrophe (CAT) operation coverage strategies, and specialized support for first-party property and automobile claims. The team also provides SIU and fraud-related investigation and litigation services, indemnification and risk transfer strategies, and comprehensive bad faith evaluation and defense. Additional offerings include policy language review, representation before administrative and insurance departments, claims practices consultation, and institutional discovery support. The group also works closely with clients to develop best practices, internal guidelines, and customized training and educational programs tailored to the full range of insurance products. With 19 offices across Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Florida, Ohio, and Connecticut, and an active presence in neighboring jurisdictions such as Maryland, West Virginia, and Kentucky, the Insurance Services Practice Group is positioned to provide seamless, regional, and national support. Its integrated approach ensures that clients receive not only skilled legal representation but also practical, forward-looking guidance designed to meet the demands of today’s insurance landscape.

Law360

Law360 - State Of Insurance Q1 Notes From Pennsylvania

April 28, 2026

The first quarter of 2026 has already featured several noteworthy insurance opinions in Pennsylvania, addressing recurring but unsettled legal questions with significant practical consequences. From causation standards in first-party property claims, to the scope of statutory bad faith liability, to the enforceability of arbitration provisions in uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist disputes, these cases illustrate how Pennsylvania courts continue to refine the boundaries of coverage and dispute resolution. Collectively, they provide important guidance to insurers, policyholders and practitioners navigating an evolving legal landscape.

Firm Highlights

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

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.

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.

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

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.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

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.