.

Timothy G. Ventura

Chair, Philadelphia Professional Liability Practice Group

Portrait of Timothy G. Ventura

Tim is Chair of the Philadelphia Professional Liability Practice Group and the Insurance Agents and Brokers Liability Group. He focuses his practice on the defense of errors and omissions claims brought against insurance agents and brokers of all sizes. He also oversees and manages the day-to-day operations of a broad range of professional liability attorneys.  

While Tim’s practice is focused on defending insurance agents and brokers, he also frequently defends attorneys, corporate directors and officers, and a variety of real estate professionals, including title agents, appraisers, brokers, home inspectors and lenders in E&O and malpractice claims brought against them. He has successfully tried multiple cases as first chair counsel resulting in jury trial defense verdicts and tried dozens of arbitrations in Pennsylvania.  Tim also has experience defending product liability matters.

In addition to his civil litigation practice, Tim is a frequent speaker and author of publications on various topics regarding Insurance Agent/Broker Errors & Omissions, for clients, brokers, industry trade associations and professional liability insurers.

In 2003, Tim graduated from Boston College with a Bachelor of Arts in political science.  During the fall semester of his junior year at BC, he clerked for Senator John Kerry (D-MA).  Tim then attended Temple University Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia, PA, where he earned his juris doctor in 2006.  He achieved various honors while at Temple Law School, including: Temple University Law Faculty Scholarship recipient; Outstanding Oral Advocacy in Trial Advocacy; and Distinguished Classroom Performance – Civil Procedure.  He was also a staff member of the Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review.

While attending Temple Law, Tim also worked part-time as a law clerk with Liberty Mutual Insurance Group in the Philadelphia Legal Department.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 2006)
    • Boston College (B.A., 2003)
    • New Jersey, 2006
    • Pennsylvania, 2006
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • American Bar Association
    • Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS)
    • The Seven-Ten Split Mock Trial: Navigating Agent Errors & Omissions, The Annual Professional Insurance Agents (PIA) Conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey, June 2, 2024
    • Pandemic Coverage Litigation Update / Insurance Broker Best Practices, Client Webinar, September 2022
    • The Aftermath of the Pandemic For Carriers and Agents, Client Webinar, July 2021
    • Pandemic Coverage Litigation Update - Agent E&O Wars to Come, Client Seminar, March 2021 
    • COVID 19 and Insurance Agent E&O, Best Practices, IA&B webinar, May 2020
    • Insurance Agent / Broker E&O Litigation Trends & Best Practices during COVID Crisis, Client Webinar, April 2020 
    • Insurance Agent / Broker E&O Litigation Trends & Best Practices, Client Seminar, April 2019
    • Insurance Agent / Broker E&O – Claims Prevention and Defense in 2018 and Beyond, Client webinar, February 2018
    • Mediation and Pre-Suit Claims Handling – Best Practices, Client Seminar, August 2016
    • Insurance Agent E&O Claims Prevention and Defense – The Road Ahead in 2016, Client Seminar, March 2016
    • Developments and Emerging Trends in the Legal and Insurance Areas of Cybersecurity, Client Seminar, February 2016
    • CPCU Society Webinar: Agent & Broker E&O - A New Lens for Viewing Exposures, September 18, 2015
    • Obtained a summary judgment dismissal in a Philadelphia Commerce Court commercial litigation matter. The case involved claims of unfair competition and tortious interference brought by one adult day care center against our client, a competing facility. The allegations centered on purported violations of regulations issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Aging and the Office of Long Term Living. The plaintiff’s final demand was $2 million, and no settlement offers were made before the trial court granted summary judgment.  
    • Obtained dismissal in Federal Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, for insurance broker client in a case involving liability/commercial insurance coverage claims related to lost business income as a result of government mandated closures triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.
    • Obtained summary judgment in Philadelphia County for our attorney/law firm client, dismissing a complex legal malpractice case involving claims of professional negligence and fraud that arose from an underlying personal injury litigation that concluded with a $700,000 settlement.  In the malpractice action, which involved various coverage and standard of care issues, Plaintiff sought approximately $2 million in damages.  Following discovery, the court granted our motion dismissing both the individual attorneys and firm clients with prejudice. For further details click here.
    • Obtained dismissal with prejudice of large automobile manufacturer client following motion oral argument. This case involved product liability claims regarding airbag deployment and alleged personal injuries caused by product defect.  No settlement offers made before suit was dismissed against client manufacturer. 
    • Defended insurance agency in Philadelphia Commerce Court action involving claims of professional negligence arising from the agency’s procurement of commercial insurance coverage for a hotel franchise owner.  Following a fire loss resulting in a completely rebuilt hotel property in Philadelphia, plaintiffs alleged their long-time insurance agency failed to obtain more comprehensive coverage available, including insufficient business interruption and ordinance or law coverage.  Plaintiffs also asserted breach of contract/bad faith claims against the insurer co-defendant.  With case exposure exceeding $8.5 million, following discovery and before trial, settled suit at mediation on behalf of insurance agency client with payment in the range of defense costs, a fraction of the total exposure and settlement demand.
    • Obtained jury trial defense verdict on behalf of large automobile manufacturer/distributor in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania following four-day trial involving multiple party, fact witness and experts’ testimony.
    • Obtained jury trial defense verdict on behalf of product manufacturer in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania following three-day trial involving party, witness and multiple experts' testimony.
    • Obtained non-suit judgment for insurance broker at arbitration in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
    • Obtained defense verdict for large automobile manufacturer at arbitration in Philadelphia County in a product liability suit involving fire cause and origin issues, with live expert testimony for both parties.
    • Obtained Non-Pros judgment in favor of wholesale insurance broker client in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  After serving plaintiff's counsel with letters threatening sanctions and fees under Pa.R.C.P. 1023.1, and the prospect of a retaliatory suit against plaintiff's counsel for wrongful use of civil proceedings, because plaintiff's claims against the wholesale insurance broker lacked probable cause, plaintiff's counsel promptly withdrew representation and the suit languished resulting in a Non Pros judgment with no indemnity paid.
    • Obtained favorable outcome for large construction company client at private binding arbitration in a personal injury suit with a settlement demand of $600,000.  Following successful defense at arbitration, with multiple party and witness testimony and experts, the award resulted in client paying less than cost of trial defense.
    • Assisted first chair counsel in successful jury trial in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.  Breach of contract/indemnity action representing construction manager against a sub-contractor, resulting in jury verdict recovery in excess of $750,000 on behalf of client.  Drafted successful pre-trial and post-trial motions, fact and expert witness coordination, with trial conference participation.
    • Obtained voluntary suit dismissal of plaintiff in legal malpractice suit with $2 million initial settlement demand after drafting successful Motion for Summary Judgment and procuring multiple defense expert reports on behalf of law firm and individual attorney clients.  Dispositive Motion established plaintiff's failure to prove her underlying case within the case and causation in professional negligence action, including the use of digital metadata analysis and litigation attorney expert opinion.
    • Defending for over ten years the manufacturer, designer and distributor of automobiles, motorcycles and varied power equipment in catastrophic injury, product liability and warranty actions.
    • Defending for over 8 years multiple wholesale and retail auto finance companies in commercial litigation and lender liability suits involving claims of fraud, breach of contract, professional negligence and unfair trade practices.

Results

Philadelphia Commerce Court Grants Summary Judgment, Dismissing $2M Unfair‑Competition and Tortious‑Interference Claims

We obtained summary judgment dismissal, following Oral Argument, in a Philadelphia Commerce Court commercial litigation matter involving allegations of unfair competition and tortious inference with contract and business relationships, brought by one adult day care center against our client, a competing adult day care facility.  The plaintiff’s suit stemmed from alleged violation of regulations set forth by the Pennsylvania Department of Aging and its Office of Long-Term Living. The plaintiff’s final demand was $2 million, and no settlement offers were made before the trial court granted summary judgment.

Montgomery County Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Insurance Broker

We obtained dismissal of our insurance broker client on Motion for Summary Judgment in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, on the basis of no duty breached, and lack of causation. Claimants asserted a professional negligence theory for allegedly allowing a commercial insurance policy to lapse, failing to notify the policyholder claimant of the lapse or cancellation, and allowing a subsequent gap in coverage to exist after the policy cancelled, when an underlying loss occurred. However, after completed discovery depositions and expert discovery, we successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing the policy cancelled because of the policyholder’s own failure to comply with premium audit requirements, rather than any liability or breach of standard of care by the insurance broker.

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Defending the Professionals Who Power the Insurance Industry

March 1, 2026

The Insurance Agents and Brokers Defense Practice Group at Marshall Dennehey is nationally recognized for its skillful representation of insurance professionals in complex civil litigation. With decades of collective experience, our attorneys provide sophisticated, results-driven defense to insurance agents, brokers, managing general agents, and other intermediaries facing professional liability claims. We understand the intricate regulatory frameworks, contractual obligations, and industry standards that govern the insurance marketplace, allowing us to craft defenses that reflect both legal prowess and practical business insight. Our team regularly defends clients in claims alleging negligence, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, failure to procure coverage, and errors in policy placement or renewal. We also handle disputes arising from alleged bad faith, premium miscalculations, claims denial, and compliance violations. Whether the matter involves a single claim or a multi-jurisdictional class action, our attorneys have the depth of knowledge and trial experience necessary to protect our clients’ reputations and minimize their exposure. Beyond litigation, our practice group emphasizes proactive risk management and claim prevention. We partner with insurance agencies and brokerages to conduct internal audits, develop best practices, and deliver training on evolving industry risks, emerging coverage issues, and regulatory developments. This preventative approach reflects our broader commitment to supporting our clients as trusted advisors, not just defenders, throughout the life of their businesses. At Marshall Dennehey we understand that every claim against an insurance professional carries significant professional and reputational consequences. Our clients rely on us for strategic, efficient, and discreet representation that aligns with their long-term business goals. By combining deep industry knowledge with vigorous advocacy and an unwavering commitment to service, our Insurance Agents and Brokers Defense Practice Group stands at the forefront of protecting the professionals who keep the insurance industry moving. Tim is Chair of the Professional Liability Practice Group, and he can be reached at TGVentura@MDWCG.com.

PLUS Blog

Pennsylvania Superior Court Rejects Breach of Oral Contract Claim Against Insurance Agent

January 26, 2026

While the majority of claims against insurance agents and brokers sound in tort, creative attorneys attempting to combat a two-year statute of limitations on tort claims or the affirmative defense of contributory negligence, may also plead a breach of oral contract claim. In Pennsylvania, contract claims have a four-year statute of limitations and are not barred by the doctrine of contributory negligence. Insureds’ counsel therefore have an incentive to try to plead tort and contract claims, both procedurally and substantively.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Personal Emails of Public Employees and Officials are Subject to OPRA

In Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that government-related emails, which are contained within personal email accounts, are government records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), and a log of those emails must be produced when requested. In reaching this decision, the court conducted an analysis of the OPRA and cited previous cases that held that emails do in fact fall within OPRA’s definition of a record and must be produced when requested pursuant to the Act. The court in Rosetti then had to answer the question as to whether public officials’ personal email accounts that are used for government purposes are subject to OPRA, and found that they are. Rosetti made an OPRA request to the Board of Education seeking email logs from Board members’ personal email accounts. The Board refused to produce the logs and indicated that it was not under any obligation to produce personal email account logs, only from government-related email accounts. The issue was whether a log had to be produced for Board members’ personal email accounts, which they used to conduct Board business. The Board argued that while it was possible to create a log for government-related email accounts through its IT Department, it was not possible to do so for personal email accounts. The court rejected this argument and ruled that Board members are required to search their personal email accounts and create a log of government-related emails housed in those accounts. Once completed, each Board member then must submit a certification detailing the searches that were conducted. The court went one step further with a suggestion to government employees and officials, stating, “[g]overnment agencies should strongly advise their employees, elected officials, and others engaged in government-related business to refrain from using their personal email accounts when conducting government-related business.”  Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this case and others pertaining to the OPRA. 

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. 

News

Marshall Dennehey’s John J. Hare Brings Home Attorney of the Year Honors; Firm Named Litigation Department of the Year in Two Categories

Marshall Dennehey took home top honors in three categories at the The Legal Intelligencer’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, held June 11 in Philadelphia. The first place awards include: Attorney of the Year: John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and Executive Committee member, together with Charles “Chip” Becker of Kline & Specter Litigation Department of the Year, Appellate – Third Win in a Row! Litigation Department of the Year, Product Liability/Mass Torts “There is no one more deserving of Attorney of the Year honors than John. This award is a testament to his exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership—qualities that truly exemplify the very best of our firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “These honors also reflect the strength and depth of our product liability, mass torts, and appellate practices across Pennsylvania and beyond, underscoring our ongoing commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.” Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side, and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record-setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion. They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community. Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Winner (previous winner, 2025 and 2024) 2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, led by John J. Hare, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court. The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters, bringing more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal. Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Winner This marks the first win for the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability and Mass Torts practices, which operate within our Casualty Department, managed by Matthew Schorr and Jeff Rapattoni. For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to these groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints, and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our mass tort litigation practice – divided into Asbestos & Mass Tort, and Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation –  has defended manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in thousands of personal injury and other claims. Led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Patrick T. Reilly, most attorneys in these groups have more than 20 years of experience, and our seasoned trial team has tried hundreds of cases to verdict, consistently achieving strong results through both trials and settlements. In addition to these awards, Marshall Dennehey was a Litigation Department of the Year finalist for Professional Liability.

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Self-Referral Prohibition Does Not Cover Prescriptions Written by Physicians with Ownership Interests in Dispensing Pharmacies

700 Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (State Workers’ Insurance Fund); Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 MAP 2024; decided June 16, 2026; by Justice Mundy.   In this case, Drs. Miteswar Purewal and Shailen Jalali, treating physicians for workers’ compensation claimants, wrote prescriptions for various medications that were filled by 700 Pharmacy. The worker’s compensation insurer refused to pay for the prescriptions on the basis that they were illegal self-referrals under the Act. 700 Pharmacy subsequently filed fee review applications with The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Review Office. At a fee review hearing, both physicians stipulated they had a financial interest in the pharmacy.  The physicians argued that the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act does not bar self-referrals on prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services, since the provision does not specifically identify prescription drugs. The Fee Review Hearing Officer rejected this argument and found that prescriptions for medications are prohibited under the “goods or services” language included in the provision. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and the court affirmed, agreeing with the Hearing Officer’s interpretation of “goods and services” as encompassing prescriptions. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Hearing Officer and the Commonwealth Court, holding that the term “goods and services” in the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act did not include prescriptions. According to the Court, “goods and services” was not a catch-all, but simply explanatory as to the eight enumerated categories in the provision. The provision (Section 306(f.1)(3)(iii)) reads, in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for a provider to refer a person for laboratory, physical therapy, rehabilitation, chiropractic, radiation oncology, psychometric, home infusion therapy  or diagnostic imaging, goods or services pursuant to this section if the provider has a financial interest with the person or in the entity that receives the referral. The Court said that if the General Assembly wanted to specifically include prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services in the Anti-Referral Provision, they would have done so. They pointed out that prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services were included by the legislature in Section 306 (f.1)(3)(vi) of the Act as to reimbursement, and claimed that their omission from the Anti-Referral Provision supports the conclusion that those services are not included in the Anti-Referral Provision’s self-referral prohibition.

Thought Leadership

Coverage Determined, Judgment Paid, Bad Faith Survives: Fourth DCA’s Opinion Highlights the Distinction Between Contractual and Extra-Contractual Damages

In Healthy Food Experts, LLC v. Amguard Ins. Co., No. 4D2025-0181 (4th DCA June 10, 2026), the Fourth District Court of Appeal explained that an insurer’s payment of a judgment in a breach of contract case does not automatically eliminate a later bad faith claim seeking extra-contractual damages. The decision provides guidance on when a first-party bad faith claim may still proceed after a coverage dispute has already been resolved by a judgment. Healthy Food Experts, LLC involved a dispute related to a property damage claim submitted under a commercial insurance policy issued by the insurer following a ceiling collapse at the insured’s restaurant. The insurer denied coverage for the insured’s losses for business personal property and business income, but extended coverage for the food spoilage losses. As a result, the insured filed a breach of contract action and ultimately obtained a jury verdict. The insurer appealed the verdict and, while the appeal was pending, the insured filed a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) seeking payment for the judgment plus interest. The insurer failed to cure the CRN within the statutory sixty-day cure period, but paid the judgement in full with accrued interest following the appeals court’s per curiam affirmance. Nevertheless, the insured filed a first party bad faith lawsuit claiming to have suffered extra-contractual damages. In response to the bad faith suit, the insurer filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, relying on Fridman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016) stating that damages were fixed by judgment of the breach of contract suit and the insured could not recover additional damages beyond those already awarded. The insurer also argued that the judgment did not exceed the insured’s policy limits, which was a required element of a first party bad faith claim. The trial court dismissed the bad faith action based on Fridman, concluding the insured could not seek any additional damages.  The insured appealed the court’s ruling to the Fourth DCA arguing the trial court’s order conflicts with Florida law and misapplies Fridman, as a contractual damage determination in the underlying suit establishes the “condition precedent to prosecute a first party bad faith action.” Cingari v. First Protective Ins. Co., 377 So. 3d 1169, 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). Further, the insured argued that the only purpose to the binding language in Fridman is to prevent the re-litigating of the same damages, which in this case are the contractual damages. The insured asserted the damages were not the “same” as they were seeking consequential damages from the insurer’s alleged bad faith. The Fourth District emphasized in its ruling that a first party bad faith claim is not ripe for litigation until there has been the following: a determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; a determination of the extent of the insured’s contractual damages, and the required civil remedy notice is filed pursuant to §624.155(3)(a).  Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 239 So. 3d 218, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) The court concluded that the necessary conditions were satisfied as the jury verdict determined both coverage and the extent of the insured’s contractual damages, and the insured properly filed a civil remedy notice, so the bad faith claim was ripe for litigation. The Fourth DCA further explained the insured could not seek contractual damages in its bad faith action, which was previously litigated in its breach of contract suit. However, the court determined the insured could seek “extra-contractual damages,” which were not recoverable in the insured’s breach of contract suit, which may include interest, court cost, and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the insured. Further, the court held excess judgment is not essential in a first party bad faith claim and the insurer’s late payment of the judgment did not preclude the insured’s bad faith action. As a result, the Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s final dismissal order of the bad faith action. This opinion highlights the distinction between contractual and extra-contractual damages. Moreover, this case demonstrates that a judgment does not necessarily end the dispute in a first party property claim as it is could also serve as a prerequisite of a bad faith action. The decision serves as a reminder that insurers may face bad faith exposure notwithstanding the payment of a judgment in an underlying breach of contract action.