.

Marshall Dennehey Launches Catastrophic Claims Litigation Practice Group

June 22, 2023

To further support clients facing complex and high-exposure litigation resulting from catastrophic events, Marshall Dennehey has launched a Catastrophic Claims Litigation Practice Group within its Casualty Department. Attorneys in the practice group defend clients against claims arising from large-scale accidents, explosions, environmental disasters, construction collapses, high-rise fires, product liability claims, mass shootings and more. 

While Marshall Dennehey has long represented clients facing catastrophic claims, the launch of this practice group formalizes and demonstrates the firm’s commitment to providing clients best-in-class service in this area. The group is led by shareholders John J. Delany, III and Kristen L. Worley. Both have years of experience handling catastrophic claims in state and federal courts, and Delany has taken to conclusion more than 60 jury trials, as well as hundreds of bench trials, arbitrations and mediations. They are accustomed to the challenges and sensitivities inherent to such claims and have represented clients in the manufacturing, construction, hospitality, trucking and transportation, energy, insurance, and other industries.

“Immediacy is the key to handling these claims,” said Delany, who serves as national coordinating counsel for several product manufacturers. “Our approach includes a thorough investigation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident, in-depth legal analysis and strategic planning to effectively protect our clients’ interests.” 

Worley added that the use of technology is essential to claims management. “We leverage advanced legal research tools, data analytics, and other technologies to conduct thorough investigations, analyze complex data and develop compelling legal arguments,” she said. “We also employ industry-leading expert witnesses and consultants who can create timelines and break down the components of a catastrophic event. This enables us to effectively manage large volumes of information and handle complex cases accurately and efficiently.”

With 40+ members in the practice group, attorneys across Marshall Dennehey’s 19 offices are prepared to provide immediate assistance when catastrophic events occur. Visit the Catastrophic Claims Litigation Practice Group page for more information. 

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.