.

Ray C. Freudiger

Shareholder

RCFreudiger@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Ray C. Freudiger

Ray Freudiger is a highly experienced litigator, having represented and defended clients in over 100 bench and jury trials in the state and Federal courts of Ohio. He has spent his career defending businesses and public entity clients in a wide variety of professional and general liability claims and suits brought against them. 

As a member of the firm’s Professional Liability Department, Ray has experience defending school districts in a wide array of matters including allegations of wrongful termination and discrimination and has knowledge of Special Education laws needed to appear in due process hearings before independent hearing officers. He also defends employers against allegations of discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity and/or national origin. He represents these clients before the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, the EEOC, and in the federal and state courts. Ray additionally defends insurance agents and brokers, amusement park operators, real estate brokers & agents, architects, engineers, surveyors and homeowners associations in errors & omissions claims. Since joining the firm, he has had 11 jury trials, 10 of which resulted in a defense verdict and the other verdict substantially less than the pretrial offer. 

Ray has defended clients before administrative agencies such as in the Ohio Division of Real Estate, Ohio Civil Rights Commission, and Department of Urban Development (HUD). He also regularly conducts seminars for real estate brokers and their agents on real estate law issues, as part of their continuing education requirements and to help them to avoid litigation. Prior to attending law school, Ray obtained his property and casualty insurance license, which has served him well in representing clients in insurance coverage and bad faith matters.
 

    • University of Cincinnati College of Law (J.D., 1991)
    • University of Cincinnati (B.B.A., 1982)
    • Ohio, 1991
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio, 1993
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit, 2017
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio, 2018
    • Supreme Court of the United States, 2019
    • Cincinnati Bar Association
    • Ohio State Bar Association, Education Law Committee
    • Dayton Bar Association, Civil Trial Practice Committee
    • Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee
    • DRI (Defense Research Institute)
    • Education Law Association
    • An Overview of Commercial Auto Insurance in Pennsylvania & Ohio, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, January 26, 2021
    • Risk Management Best Practices for Engineers, Client Presentation, January 25, 2018
    • Secured a decision from the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed a jury verdict in favor of our client, a housing authority in Ohio.  After written Briefing and oral argument, The Sixth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict in which the Appellant developer failed to prove that the Housing Authority discriminated against it (in violation of ADA and FHA) by refusing to apply to HUD for VASH vouchers on behalf of the developer. The developer failed to prove it asked the housing authority for VASH on behalf of disabled persons, the request was not reasonable, and the request was not necessary to enable disabled persons to enjoy their residents as non-disabled persons could.
    • Secured dismissal on behalf of our client, an insurance agency in Hamilton County, Ohio. The plaintiff entity alleged that it suffered monetary damages by having to pay for claims made against its California employees. It alleged the agency failed to obtain Employment Practices Liability insurance for the company’s California employees. In our Motion to Dismiss, Ray successfully argued that the “economic loss doctrine” barred all claims against the agency. 
    • Successfully argued in Motion for Summary Judgment that Plaintiffs' claims were precluded by law because the general grant of immunity pursuant to R.C. §2744.01 applied to them as a political subdivision and no exception to immunity existed. Plaintiffs, a minor student and parent, filed suit against the school district, school board, supervising teacher, and principal alleging they were negligent when an afterschool science project (through the STEM program) caught fire causing burn injuries to the student. This included the exception that allows for negligence claims when there is a physical defect within or on the grounds of the entity.  Further, the individual employees were also granted immunity because they were acting in their official capacities and thus the same analysis afforded to the school applied to the individuals. The Judge ultimately granted our Motion and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims.  
    • Obtained dismissal of an Ohio insurance agent who was sued by a condominium association.  The allegation was that the insurance agent inappropriately and unlawfully inserted himself into the insurance company’s investigation and tortuously interfered with the contract that resulted in the insurance company paying far less than the $1.3 million in damages alleged by the condominium association.  After taking depositions of the individuals from the condominium association, the insurance company, and defending his client’s deposition, Ray convinced Plaintiff’s attorney to dismiss all claims against the insurance agent.
    • Obtained a summary judgement in a slip and fall matter involving a liquor store, where the plaintiff slipped and fractured her wrist upon stepping into the store on May 18, 2018. Heavy rain that evening allegedly caused water to be blown inside, which Field claimed as the cause of her fall. A wet floor sign was present, but she did not see it. We argued that the rainwater was an open and obvious condition, which under Ohio law, they had no duty to warn against. The court, citing similar cases, agreed, noting that a property owner is generally not liable for injuries from open and obvious conditions like rainwater. As Field failed to establish that the defendants breached their duty of care, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
    • Obtained a summary judgement for a general contractor insured by our client. Plaintiff was working for his employer at a fracking site when he was struck in the head by a hose that came off an above-ground storage tank. He sustained serious and permanent injuries. Plaintiff claimed the general contractor was liable for his injuries because it actively participated on the work site and controlled the unsafe condition which caused his injuries. We moved for summary judgment arguing that the general contractor relinquished complete control over the site to a sub-contractor and, thus, it had no control over any unsafe condition which caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of our client.
    • Secured significant victory in wrongful death commercial liability action at both trial and appellate court levels in suit involving death of 18-year old woman who was struck and killed by a commercial truck that was backing up an access ramp to deliver product at a grain receiving facility at the same time the woman traversed onto the ramp.
    • Obtained a defense verdict in a jury trial where the case involved a rear end car accident. The plaintiff alleged serious and permanent injury, and while our client admitted fault, their contention was that the impact was of a minimal nature. The plaintiff incurred over $69,000 in medical expenses after the accident, and made a settlement demand of $200,000. The plaintiff rejected our nominal offer to settle the case before trial. Through the use of medical expert testimony, the defense contended that plaintiff's treatment was fueled by her subjective complaints, but there was no objective evidence of injury. The jury ruled in favor of the defendant.
    • Obtained a summary judgment on behalf of an insurance agent and the insurance agency. The agent and agency helped a business procure property and liability insurance on its business. A fire loss occurred and the insured discovered that it did not have business interruption coverage. It sued the agent and the agency for negligence, breach of contract and estoppel in failing to procure business interruption coverage for the insured. We convinced the Court that an insurance agent only has a duty to seek coverage which has been requested by the insured. Although the agent reassured the insured the day after the fire that the insured had business interruption coverage, the fact that this statement was incorrect, there is no evidence of any reliance by the insured, any reliance would have been unreasonable and unforeseen and the insured would have know that the agent's statements were incorrect if it had looked at the policy in its possession.
    • Successfully defended EEOC Charge of Discrimination brought against charter school client for alleged disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, as well of claims of FMLA interference and retaliation, resulting in finding of No Probable Cause in favor of employer.
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of insurance agency and insurance agent clients in insurance agent/broker professional liability action involving alleged failure to procure business interruption coverage for insured's start-up restaurant, which subsequently sustained uncovered fire loss.
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of one of nation’s largest grocery store chains in significant federal rights action that received considerable media attention venued in federal court in Cincinnati involving unruly patron and patron's right to open carry weapon on private premises.
    • Secured dispositive dismissal on behalf of national insurance carrier in breach of contract and bad faith action involving residential fire that occurred at insureds' residence. In addition, as a result of in-depth investigation and discovery in civil suit, insureds were charged with and pled guilty to crimes of arson and insurance fraud.

Results

View all

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.

Summary Judgment Secured in a Design Defect Case

We won summary judgment on behalf of a company that provided software for the overall design of roof trusses in a design defect case. The plaintiff owned the apartment complex being built and hired Turnbull Wahlert to construct the building. 84 Lumber was subcontracted by Turnbull to build and install the roof trusses. 84 Lumber contracted with our client to use its software for the design of the roof trusses and to provide truss connect plate hangers. The building experienced severe water damage allegedly because the roof trusses were not sloped properly and the HVAC units were misplaced on the roof. Damages were estimated at over $1.2 million. 84 Lumber demanded that our client defend and indemnify it against Turnbull’s allegations. The court granted our motion for summary judgment.

Thought Leadership

View all

Legal Updates for Real Estate E&O Liability

New Ohio Law Targets Real Estate Wholesaling Practices

May 7, 2026

Effective March 2, 2026, the Ohio Department of Commerce Division of Real Estate and Professional Licensing (REPL) now requires real estate wholesalers to clearly disclose their intention and business model when contracting with a property owner and seller.  This was part of Ohio Senate Bill 155, which passed unanimously in the Ohio Senate in June 2025, and was signed into law by Governor Mike DeWine on December 1, 2025.  Real estate wholesalers serve as intermediaries in property transactions. They enter into a purchase agreement with a seller with no intent to buy the property themselves. Instead, they assign the contract to another buyer or investor at a higher price or charge a fee, typically 5% to 10% of the sale price, to earn a profit. The REPL, in partnership with the Ohio Department of Aging (ODA), and Ohio District 5 Area Agency on Aging in Richland issued a Consumer Alert in March 2025, on wholesalers, citing a rise in unsolicited real estate offers targeting older Ohio homeowners, often offering complex financial arrangements that include hidden risks, leaving older homeowners financially vulnerable. Under this new legislation, real estate wholesalers in Ohio are required to disclose their status to sellers or property owners and clarify that they do not represent the seller in the transaction. The law mandates that this disclosure be made through a clear and conspicuous written statement informing the seller that the individual is acting as a wholesaler. This disclosure must also be separate from the purchase contract or agreement between the parties and must be printed in bold type with a font size of at least 12 points. In the event a wholesaler fails to provide proper notice to the seller, the seller may cancel the purchase contract at any time before the close of escrow without penalty, giving the wholesaler 30 days to return any earnest money or deposits to the seller. Wholesalers who do not clearly disclose their role or properly inform the seller may also face disciplinary action from the Ohio Superintendent of Real Estate. This can include penalties such as suspension or revocation of their real estate license, as well as potential civil liability, monetary damages, and responsibility for attorneys’ fees.

Legal Updates for Special Education Law

Ohio Law Does Not Conflict with the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act

April 1, 2025

The Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) oversees Ohio’s implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), a federal law that entitles children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). In a recent lawsuit, DEW argued that a state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an IDEA claim because the state’s administrate code conflicted with the IDEA and, therefore, was preempted by federal law. State ex rel. Governing Bd. of Warren Cnty. Educational Serv. Ctr. v. Ohio Dept. of Education & Workforce, 2024-Ohio-6061 (12th Dist.). The specific conflict advanced by DEW was that the IDEA complaint procedure applied to any “public agency, while Adm.Code 3301-51-05(K)(5) and (6) is more circumscribed by applying only to a disabled child's ‘school district of residence.’ ” At the trial level, the court disagreed with DEW’s argument, holding that IDEA complaint procedures set forth in 34 C.F.R. 300.152 and 34 C.F.R. 300.153 and those set forth by Adm.Code 3301-51-05(K)(5) and (6) are “virtually identical,” with the exception that the C.F.R. uses the term “public agency” while the Adm.Code uses the term “school district of residence.”  The Twelfth District Court of Appeals agreed that Ohio’s complaint procedures were not in conflict with federal law. The appeal court explained that the IDEA and 34 C.F.R. 300.152 and 300.153 were crafted with general language to accommodate the variations of 50 states’ educational systems. As such, it makes sense that C.F.R. used the broad term “public agency” in the IDEA regulations. Adm.Code 3301-51-05(K)(5) and (6) do not truncate the IDEA or limit its protections; thus, they are not in conflict. In summary, the IDEA does not preempt Ohio’s administrate code regarding the procedure for filing an IDEA claim.    Legal Update for Special Education Law – April 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

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.

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

Court Allows Recklessness and Punitive Damages Claims to Proceed After Work‑Zone Crash

In a case where a defendant filed preliminary objections against allegations of recklessness and punitive damages, the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas denied these preliminary objections. This case stems from a motor vehicle accident, where the defendants car struck the plaintiffs car after the defendant allegedly fell asleep at the wheel, going at a high rate of speed, through a construction work zone. Defendant first objected to the general allegations throughout the plaintiff’s complaint pertaining to “reckless” conduct contending that there were insufficient factual allegations to support the claim of reckless conduct. Defendant next objected to the plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, as punitive damages may only be assessed against a motorist for falling asleep while driving if there is further evidence to prove driver was aware of their drowsiness and risk of falling asleep. Lastly, defendant objected to plaintiffs complaint, claiming it lacked specificity. The court here found that the plaintiff had included in the complaint specific allegations related to the defendant’s alleged recklessness, including allegations regarding speeding in a work zone, almost striking the flagger, falling asleep at the wheel, and striking the plaintiffs vehicle which was stopped. Additionally, the court noted that falling asleep does not come without warning. The court found that these allegations were sufficient to support an allegation of recklessness at the pleadings stage.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Exclusion of Legal Malpractice Expert as Impermissible Net Opinion

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias obtained a favorable decision on behalf of their client in a case centering on the admissibility of expert testimony in legal malpractice actions. In Martin v. Loury, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the exclusion of a plaintiff's legal malpractice expert, holding that the expert's opinions on causation and damages were too speculative to support the malpractice claim. The legal malpractice action arose from an underlying employment dispute involving claims for damages stemming from the breach of an employment agreement. The plaintiff alleged that defense counsel committed malpractice during a second trial by failing to recall the plaintiff as a rebuttal witness after the employer's CEO testified. According to the plaintiff's expert, additional rebuttal testimony would have bolstered the plaintiff's damages claims and led to a more favorable result. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division rejected that theory. The courts found that the expert could not explain how the proposed rebuttal testimony would have altered the outcome of the underlying case or resulted in any additional recoverable damages. Notably, the trial judge in the underlying employment matter had already rejected the CEO's testimony as not credible and had accepted the damages analysis advanced by the plaintiff. The court had also determined that the amount of damages was not genuinely disputed. As a result, the expert's opinion that additional rebuttal testimony would have produced a better outcome was unsupported by the record and based on speculation rather than evidence. The Appellate Division agreed that neither the plaintiff nor the expert could identify any actual damages attributable to the alleged malpractice or demonstrate the required element of proximate causation. The court further upheld the trial court's application of New Jersey's net opinion doctrine, finding that the expert failed to provide the necessary "why and wherefore" supporting his conclusion that the attorney's conduct caused a compensable loss. Because the opinions rested on unquantified possibilities rather than demonstrable facts, they were inadmissible. Key Takeaway for Legal Malpractice Defendants For attorneys and firms defending legal malpractice claims, Martin v. Loury underscores the importance of closely scrutinizing an opponent's expert report on the critical elements of proximate causation and damages. The decision demonstrates that a malpractice claim cannot survive where an expert merely speculates that different litigation tactics might have produced a better result. Instead, the plaintiff must present admissible expert testimony grounded in the record that explains how the alleged attorney error probably changed the outcome of the underlying matter and resulted in measurable damages.

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

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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. 

Thought Leadership

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Holds That Public Policy Does Not Prevent Insurance Coverage for Sex Trafficking Claims

On July 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an opinion emphasizing the limited circumstances in which courts may invoke public policy to bar insurance coverage, holding in Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (U.S. Branch) v. RI Settlement Trust that Pennsylvania public policy does not preclude coverage for claims alleging that insureds enabled or profited from human sex trafficking. The decision rejects a line of federal district court decisions predicting otherwise and reinforces that Pennsylvania courts will invoke the public policy doctrine only in the clearest of circumstances. RI Settlement is particularly significant because it arose on certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, giving the Supreme Court the opportunity to resolve an issue on which federal courts had predicted Pennsylvania law differently. RI Settlement arose out of four separate civil complaints in which the underlying plaintiffs alleged that, as minors, they were the victims of human sex trafficking at various hotels in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs claimed that the hotel owners were negligent in failing to stop the sex trafficking from happening at their hotels. After the filing of the lawsuits, the hotel owners sought coverage under their Commercial General Liability policies. The insurers initially defended the hotels under Reservation of Rights letters, though the carriers later filed Declaratory Judgment actions seeking declarations that they did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify. In short, the insurers argued in the alternative that they did not owe any obligation to provide coverage based upon Pennsylvania public policy (because the claims violated the Human Trafficking Law – 18 Pa.C.S. § 3011) and the terms and conditions of the policy. On motions for judgment on the pleadings, the District Court found for the insurers on the basis of public policy: There is no duty to defend or indemnify against actions arising out of an insured's criminal conduct related to the sex trafficking of minors. The Court appreciates that it may make public policy the basis of a judicial decision only in “the clearest of cases.” See Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 589 A.2d 854, 868 (Pa. 2004) (quoting Hall v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 648 A.2d 755, 760 (Pa. 1994)). Yet, the Court strains to imagine a clearer case than the one presented here in which the facts alleged indicate that Policyholders engaged in criminal conduct in violation of Pennsylvania's Human Trafficking Law. The hotel owners appealed the matter to the Third Circuit, which petitioned the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to grant review of two certified questions of law: (1) whether Pennsylvania law had an “overriding public policy” against sex trafficking, such that an insurer’s duty to defend and/or indemnify is abrogated when an insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from such trafficking; and (2) if yes, is that duty abrogated whenever the insured’s alleged conduct would constitute a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Trafficking statute. Importantly, the certified questions did not ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the policies afforded coverage under their terms. Rather, the court was asked only whether Pennsylvania public policy independently barred coverage. As a result, the court assumed for purposes of answering the certified questions that the insurers otherwise owed a duty to defend and addressed only the public policy issue, leaving all policy-based coverage defenses for further proceedings. Because the court concluded that the answer to the first certified question was “no”, it did not reach the second issue. In reaching its determination that Pennsylvania public policy does not prohibit insurance coverage for sex trafficking claims, the court limited the impact of its decision in Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 855 A. 2d 854, 855 (Pa. 2004), which the RI Settlement opinion emphasized as having been an “Opinion Announcing Judgment of the Court” – or a plurality opinion. In Greenfield, the insured homeowner was sued by the estate of his houseguest who overdosed from heroin that he sold to her. The matter wound its way to the Supreme Court, which determined that the insurer did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify based upon Pennsylvania public policy, which criminalized the sale and use of heroin as a Schedule I narcotic. In RI Settlement, the court “decline[d] the invitation” to extend the rationale of the three-justice plurality in Greenfield beyond cases involving Schedule I controlled substances. In so holding, the justices in RI Settlement refused to “divine an overriding public policy pronouncement by the General Assembly by virtue of its enactment of the Human Trafficking Law.” The opinion further states that it is not “within the purview of this Court to rank the magnitude of the public policy underlying the various crimes defined in the Crimes Code. It is sufficient for the work of the courts to know that the General Assembly has identified conduct it deems harmful and dangerous to the maintenance of an orderly society and criminalized it.” While the court declined to declare that Pennsylvania public policy prohibits coverage for sex trafficking claims, the opinion in RI Settlement expressly states that insurers are free to include appropriate exclusionary language for such causes of actions in their policies if they desire to do so. It will certainly be interesting to see whether the insurance industry accepts the court’s invitation, or perhaps whether the Pennsylvania legislature steps in to clarify that sex trafficking claims are indeed of the type or magnitude that they should not be covered by insurance. In any event, we will, of course, continue to monitor this and other insurance coverage issues that arise before courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and throughout our firm’s geographic footprint and around the country.