.

Evan is an associate in the Casualty Department, where he focuses in the areas of premises liability, construction injury, product liability, transportation, and general liability.

Evan gained invaluable legal experience through his 2018-2021 internship with the Honorable Richard A. Lloret of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After serving as legal intern during his 1L summer, Evan was invited to remain in chambers with Judge Lloret throughout the remainder of his law school tenure. There, Evan drafted several habeas corpus and helped facilitate settlement conferences and arbitrations.   

Before attending law school, Evan worked as a private intelligence analyst for a security consulting firm, serving as head analyst for several Fortune 500 companies. 

As an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania, Evan had the invaluable experience of interning at the Israeli Embassy in Washington D.C., where he conducted research pertaining to the World Bank, national aid agencies, and international private sector projects concerning water and agriculture. 

Evan is an editorial contributor to the Times of Israel, writing columns pertaining to geopolitics and international relations, including an article selected as a top-featured editorial.  

Prior to attending university, Evan served as a sergeant in the Paratrooper Brigade of the Israeli Defense Forces.

    • Rutgers Law School (J.D., 2021)
    • University of Pennsylvania (B.A., cum laude, 2016)
    • Pennsylvania, 2021
    • Successfully concluded a three-day trial in a premises liability matter in Philadelphia County. The matter focused on slip-and-fall allegations in the lobby of the claimant’s former residence. The claimant specifically alleged an accumulation of water in the lobby before the time of the fall and thereafter underwent surgery (surgical arthroscopy of the left ankle with extensive debridement). Allegations of negligence against our client consisted of failure to maintain the lobby in a safe and reasonable manner. The last demand before trial was $240,000.00, while the last offer was $15,000.00. After three (3) days, the jury awarded Plaintiff a mere $45,000.00, almost all of which was to be paid toward expert retention and Plaintiff’s medical lien (over $26,000.00). 
    • Secured a unanimous defense verdict in a Philadelphia County premises liability jury trial involving allegations of a defective sidewalk condition and a demand of $875,000. Following a three-day trial, the jury found in favor of the defense, determining that the client was not liable for the plaintiff's alleged injuries.
    • Our motion for summary judgment was granted, in part, in a Philadelphia jury case where our client was driving his company’s car. ​Evan argued on behalf of the corporate entity that, despite the fact that our client was driving a company car and his job consisted of travel, he was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. For the loss of consortium claim, Evan argued the plaintiff had not provided evidence of record to support this claim. Therefore, the loss of consortium claims were also dismissed.
    • Successfully obtained dismissal of their client in a death-from-food-poisoning and hepatitis A case. The plaintiff, the executrix of the Estate of Alfred Neeld, alleged that Mr. Neeld passed away due to an outbreak of hepatitis A in southeast Pennsylvania, which was widely covered by the news at the time. The plaintiff, who claimed that Mr. Neeld passed away after eating at Gino's Pizzeria and Ristorante, was seeking several million dollars from every food provider that served the restaurant, including our client. Fortunately, the plaintiff stipulated to our dismissal.
    • Secured a defense verdict in a hotly contested slip and fall case with Simon and Simon where the plaintiff admitted on cross to lying under oath. The plaintiff’s demand was $800,000 before being remanded to arbitration.
    • Successfully argued a motion for summary judgment on a major jury case where we represented a tenant shop owner. The plaintiff opposed our motion, alleging, inter alia, serious injuries to a shoulder and surgery. There were many moving pieces in this case, including indemnity issues, an alleged triple net lease and joinder after the statute of limitations. The plaintiff tripped and fell on a sidewalk that was under repair outside our client's store. We were joined by the original defendant, the landlord. We argued the plaintiff had no direct cause of action against us as we were joined after the statute of limitations; there was no evidence of record of our involvement as plaintiff did not visit our store; we were not responsible for the sidewalk repair; and the original defendant landlord was responsible for the sidewalk in question as the lease was ambiguous as to who was responsible for external repairs.
    • Won an arbitration in a motor vehicle accident case. The accident between our client and the co-defendant occurred at an intersection in University City, Philadelphia in October 2019. As the plaintiff was a passenger in our client's car, there was no liability argument pertaining to the plaintiff. Both our client and the co-defendant claimed they had a green light and that the other party had a red light when they entered the intersection. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered injuries to her right knee and lower back. Evan was able to convince the arbitration panel that the plaintiff had no claim against our client and that the co-defendant was fully and solely liable for the accident. The co-defendant was found 100% liable for the accident, and the plaintiff was rewarded $35,286.62.
    • Successful in having preliminary objections, in the nature of a demurrer, dismissed in the case representing a major print media organization. The plaintiff initiated this action for damages allegedly arising from a slip and fall that occurred on May 13, 2021. The slip and fall is believed to have taken place at department store. Our clients did not own or possess the property in question and had nothing to do with creating the alleged dangerous condition. In his preliminary objections, Evan argued the plaintiff's complaint did not actually state specifically the location where she fell. Evan also argued that our client did not own or possess the property in question, nor did it create the alleged offending condition. The plaintiff amended her complaint without our client.
    • Successfully argued a petition to strike default judgment in front of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Evan's oral argument was successful and the default judgment was stricken. Evan argued that the plaintiff's notice to take the default judgment was deficient on its face.

Results

View all
Defense Verdict Secured in a Premises Liability Case

Defense Verdict Secured in a Premises Liability Case

Dismissal Secured in Food Poisoning and Hepatitis A Case

We successfully obtained dismissal of their client in a death-from-food-poisoning and hepatitis A case. The plaintiff, Joyce Neeld, executrix of the Estate of Alfred Neeld, alleged that Mr. Neeld passed away due to an outbreak of hepatitis A in southeast Pennsylvania, which was widely covered by the news at the time. The plaintiff, who claimed that Mr. Neeld passed away after eating at Gino’s Pizzeria and Ristorante, was seeking several million dollars from every food provider that served the restaurant, including our client. Fortunately, the plaintiff stipulated to our dismissal.

Thought Leadership

View all

Case Law Alerts

Philadelphia Jury Issued $5,071,974 Award to Plaintiff for Economic Damages and $1 Million for Noneconomic Damages.

October 1, 2024

The plaintiff claimed he was helping to unload a box truck at the facility where he worked when one of the pallets fell on him, crushing his lower body. The cargo weighed approximately 1,500 pounds and had been loaded by the manufacturer/consignor, defendant Ingram Micro. The shipper and owner of the box truck, F&E Transport, was also named as a defendant. The plaintiff reportedly sustained C7 and T3-T5 vertebrae fractures, a left femur fracture, bilateral pelvic fractures and crush injuries. The plaintiff underwent fixation surgeries to his femur, hip, and pelvis and required opiate and non-opiate pain medication. The plaintiff was diagnosed with PTSD and experienced urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction and memory issues. He was unable to return to his former occupation. According to the plaintiff, the heavy pallets were dangerously double stacked and had shifted during shipping. The plaintiff contended that Ingram Micro had been warned by his employer that double stacking was dangerous and a hazard to its employees. However, the load was double stacked regardless. The plaintiff claimed Ingram Micro acted in a malicious, wanton, willful and oppressive manner, and/or showed reckless indifference to the interest of others, warranting punitive damages. Regarding F&E Transport, the plaintiff claimed it failed to ensure that the interior frame of its truck and the load bars were in a proper and safe condition. A jury assigned liability at 80% to Ingram Micro and 20% to the plaintiff. The jury found in favor of F&E Transport and declined to award punitive damages.    Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Case Law Alerts

As an Incident Occurred While Transporting a Passenger in New Jersey, Insurance Company’s Endorsement 7212 Acted to Increase Its Underinsured Motorist’s Coverage Limits to Meet New Jersey’s Limits of $1.5 Million as Specified by New Jersey Law.

January 1, 2024

The plaintiff, who was driving for Uber at the time of the accident, alleged that the defendant’s insured, Claudio Palacios-Serrano, negligently operated his motor vehicle by failing to stop and/or yield to the plaintiff’s vehicle, who had the right-of-way before making a left turn. The plaintiff claimed injuries to the head, cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, as well as a traumatic brain injury, concussion post-concussion syndrome, post-traumatic headaches, loss of balance, aggravation of cervical disc herniations and cervical radiculopathy.  The defendant’s insured pled guilty to careless driving in municipal court. Prior to the accident, the defendant, Farmers Insurance, issued a policy of automobile insurance to Rasier LLC, Rasier-CA LLC, Rasier-DC LLC, and Rasier-PA LLC (wholly owned subsidiaries of Uber). Accordingly, the plaintiff was insured under the Farmers Insurance policy as a Transportation Network Company Driver who was providing a prearranged ride to a passenger that originated in the state of Pennsylvania.  Because the crash occurred while transporting a passenger in the state of New Jersey, Farmers Insurance endorsement 7212 acted to increase its Underinsured Motorist’s Coverage limits to meet the limits of $1.5 million as specified by New Jersey law. The jury awarded the plaintiff $125,000 in non-economic damages and $600,000 in economic damages, for a total of $725,000.    Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

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. 

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter