Results

The company was dismissed along with other highway construction companies in a Cumberland County case. The plaintiff sued our client and several other contractors on an active highway construction site, alleging the various construction companies were negligent for failing to properly warn drivers sufficiently ahead of potentially stopped traffic.

We obtained a no cause verdict following a one day non-jury trial (conducted virtually) in the Law Division of Hudson County for our client, a national trucking company. The plaintiff alleged the truck swerved into his lane causing property damage.

We obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims against our clients in a motor vehicle matter in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The plaintiff brought a claim against our clients, a national bus company, our insured driver, and the local School District for negligence related to a motor vehicle accident that occurred when the plaintiff was working as a bus monitor for the bus company.

We successfully obtained summary judgment dismissal of all claims against our client in a transportation/premises liability case in the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The plaintiff brought a claim for injuries sustained due to an alleged slip-and-fall in a bus yard owned by our client. The bus yard was leased to a transportation company that employed the plaintiff.

Marshall Dennehey’s appellate attorneys filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute and Pennsylvania Association of Defense Counsel in a case pending in the Pennsylvania Superior Court that involved interpretation of a “regular use” exclusion that commonly appears in underinsured motorist coverage in automobile policies. The Superior Court enforced the exclusion, as PDI and PADC had requested. The plaintiff regularly used a company vehicle for his daily work. But one or two days before the accident, the specific vehicle he had been driving was taken

We successfully defended a workers’ compensation case that was transferred from the insurance carrier’s staff counsel after litigation and motion practice. ​After a settlement offer in excess of $16 million was rejected, the case went to trial. At trial, we were able to prove that an uninsured subcontractor was hired by the general contractor, who was the actual employer of the injured worker. Under New Jersey Law, this means that the general contractor is responsible for the workers' compensation benefits for the petitioner.

​The petitioner filed a motion for additional medical and temporary disability benefits, essentially alleging she was permanently and totally disabled from prior compensable shoulder and leg injuries. After a three-day trial and extensive briefing, the judge dismissed the motion. He determined that, despite the compensable injuries, the petitioner had plateaued medically and was not entitled to any further benefits.

We obtained a defense verdict after a one-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case involved alleged race, gender and/or “intersectional” (race and gender) discrimination claims by two women against a Philadelphia area school district.

The plaintiff’s wife reported to police that the plaintiff tried to kill her by firing a shotgun at her while she slept. Following a thorough investigation and witness interviews, police arrested the plaintiff and charged him with attempted murder. The next day, the wife recanted her story and told police that she was the one who fired a shotgun in the couple’s home in an effort to frame her husband for attempted murder. Police immediately had the plaintiff released from prison. The wife was later charged with, and pleaded guilty to, making false statements to authorities.

The condo association brought suit against its former property manager, alleging 23 theories of wrongdoing and claiming over $1.5 million in damages. Early mediation was unsuccessful, due in large part to a six-figure claim for attorney’s fees. Preliminary objections were filed on the basis that property management services provided to a condominium association are not “primarily for personal, family or household purposes,” as required for a UTP claim.