Pittsburgh
The Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania office of Marshall Dennehey, which opened in May of 1993, is now located in the historic Union Trust Building. The office is comprised of civil litigation attorneys practicing in all four of our major law groups covering Casualty and General Liability, Professional Liability, Health Care and Workers' Compensation. The majority of the attorneys have enjoyed a long standing professional relationship in the practice of defense litigation and are natives or long-time residents of the Pittsburgh area.
Pittsburgh is a naturally convenient location in which to quarter a litigation practice serving the Western Pennsylvania counties of Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, Clarion, Armstrong, Jefferson, Indiana, Westmoreland, Fayette, Washington, Greene, Somerset, Bedford, Blair, Cambria and Clearfield. The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania is located in Pittsburgh. In addition, Pittsburgh is the seat of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which operates one of the busiest civil dockets in the Commonwealth's court system. A large majority of the workers' compensation claims and civil liability suits filed in the entire Western Pennsylvania region are litigated either in Pittsburgh or within a short drive of our office.
In addition to providing counsel in Western Pennsylvania, a number of attorneys in our Pittsburgh office are admitted to the bar in West Virginia. Here, they represent clients in both the state courts and before the United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia.
Thought Leadership
Defense Digest
Forum Non Conveniens: It Really Has Little To Do With Convenience
June 30, 2026
Key Points: In evaluating a challenge for forum non conveniens, deference must be given to plaintiff’s choice of forum. “Congested centers of litigation” alone are not a reason to transfer a case to another forum. When a defendant is incorporated in the chosen forum, that forum has a legitimate interest in adjudicating disputes involving its corporate entities. Codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(e), the Pennsylvania doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to stay or dismiss a matter in whole or in part where it “finds that in the interest of substantial justice the matter should be heard in another forum.” In evaluating a challenge for forum non conveniens, deference must be given to plaintiff’s choice forum, “but somewhat to a lesser degree when plaintiff’s residence and place of injury are located somewhere else.” See McConnell v. B. Braun Medical, Inc., 221 A.3d 221, 227-228 (Pa. Super. 2019). The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s March 25, 2026, opinion in Duxbury v. Reconstructive Orthopedic Associates II, P.C. d/b/a/ The Rothman Institute of New Jersey, et al., 354 A.3d 551 (Pa. Super. 2026) illustrates just how the application of forum non conveniens does not necessarily lead to the forum that the facts and everyday considerations may suggest is “convenient.” The Duxburys filed their medical negligence case in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, against Reconstructive Orthopedic Associates II, P.C. (ROA), Atlantic Surgery Care (ASC), and Dr. Alyson Axelrod, who was employed by ROA and The Rothman Institute of New Jersey (RINJ). Notably, the Duxburys are New Jersey residents and the medical care giving rise to their claim was rendered at locations in New Jersey. ROA is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Philadelphia. ROA also maintained its principal place of business in Philadelphia, and Dr. Axelrod was licensed to practice medicine in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The medical defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(e) and forum non conveniens. The trial court permitted discovery as to the forum issue. Finding “weighty reasons” in support of dismissal, the trial court granted the motion and directed the Duxburys to refile their claim in New Jersey. The trial court found the following factors as “weighty reasons” justifying dismissal: (1) the injuries were sustained in New Jersey; (2) treatment was rendered in New Jersey; (3) relevant medical providers were residents of New Jersey; (4) defendants’ witnesses resided in New Jersey, with the exception of one; and (5) the relevant medical records were located in New Jersey. On appeal, the Duxburys argued that the trial court erred in its application of existing precedent regarding forum non conveniens, and that a consideration of the facts under a correct application of the law did not support transfer of the action to New Jersey. The Superior Court agreed, reasoning that the trial court had not conducted the full analysis set forth in McConnell, in finding “weighty reasons” alone enough to justify its decision to dismiss the plaintiff’s action with directions to refile it in New Jersey. McConnell explains that the determination of “weighty reasons” overcomes the deference afforded to a plaintiff’s choice of forum. To make this determination the trial court must examine both the private and public interest factors involved in the case. McConnell, 221 A.3d at 227-228. The “private factors” include: The relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance for unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of the premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. The public factors to be considered include: Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial … in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself. The Superior Court reiterated that it is the burden of the moving party (i.e. the appellees/medical defendants) to establish that Pennsylvania is a less convenient forum than another available forum. The appellate court found that the trial court committed an error of law in failing to consider the circumstances linking the case to Pennsylvania as well, and to determine whether Pennsylvania was an inconvenient forum, not simply that New Jersey was more convenient for appellees. Regarding the private factors, the Superior Court noted that Dr. Axelrod’s proximity to Philadelphia, and concerns about her commute into town were not grounds to dismiss for inconvenience. The appellate court also found that the trial court gave no consideration to whether any witness would not or could not travel to Pennsylvania. Additionally, the court reasoned that the sources of proof—the medical records—while located in New Jersey, likely could just as easily be produced in Pennsylvania. Addressing the medical defendants’ principal place of business in Philadelphia as an “address,” the court “recognized that that for foreign defendants with corporate offices in Pennsylvania,” in terms of convenience for those defendants, that forum state seems as good as any other. McConnell, 221 A.3d at 230; see also Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d 544, 551 (Pa. Super. 2006). Though the trial court failed to consider any public factors, the Superior Court did first find error in the trial court’s focus on Philadelphia as opposed to the state of Pennsylvania. The court then determined that “congested centers of litigation” alone are not a reason to transfer a case to another forum. Second, the court emphasized that “when a defendant is incorporated in the chosen forum, that forum has a legitimate interest in adjudicating disputes involving its corporate entitles.” Finally, the Superior Court found that the medical defendants provided medical care in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and Dr. Axelrod was licensed to provide medical care in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. As to the question of what state’s law would apply, the parties agreed that New Jersey law would, and there was no showing that the Philadelphia trial judge would be incapable of applying it. The Superior Court concluded that the medical defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence of public factors to support overriding the Duxbury’s choice of forum. What litigants can learn from the Duxbury opinion is that “convenience” in considering a plaintiff’s choice of forum for litigation is not necessarily a matter of ease, little trouble, or less effort. Melissa works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-3477 or MDCochran@mdwcg.com.
Defense Digest
The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue
June 30, 2026
Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable. For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen. See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.
Results
Defense Verdict Obtained After Seven-Day Bench Trial
We received a defense decision after a seven-day bench trial in a product liability action in which the exposure in the case exceeded $30 million. Our client designs, sells and services engineered equipment for the energy industry, including natural gas compression apparatuses for use in transmission pipeline systems. In 2015, the client sold the plaintiff two reciprocating compressor systems to replace outdated equipment at a station located near Downingtown, PA. The compressor systems were designed to inject oil into the gas stream for piston lubrication. This lubricating oil needed to be removed from the gas stream using filtration devices supplied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed weld debris contained within certain vessels of the compressors migrated downstream upon commissioning and compromised several gas filtration devices. The plaintiff further contended the damaged filtration devices permitted excess lubricating oil into the pipeline, which fouled multiple turbines owned by its downstream customer at a large natural gas-fired power plant, causing significant economic losses. The applicable contract between the plaintiff and our client contained a forum selection clause requiring litigation to take place in Lake County, Indiana. The plaintiff claimed commercial losses of $18 million, plus attorney fees (per contract) in the neighborhood of $4 million. The plaintiff also maintained it was entitled to pre-judgment interest. If successful in establishing liability, this sum would have added another $5 million to $7 million to the damage award, depending on the interest rate employed by the court. Therefore, the pure exposure in the case exceeded $30 million. In response to the plaintiff’s claims, we successfully established that the weld debris incident was a red herring and did not damage the filtration equipment. Material testing of debris from within the filtration devices revealed very little weld debris compared to pipe scale and other naturally occurring components. Through key expert testimony, we established that the plaintiff could not meet its burden of proof because the oil contamination events may have been caused by several factors directly attributable to the plaintiff’s lack of design engineering, inadequate equipment maintenance, equipment failure and inappropriate response to system alarms.
Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case
We secured a complete defense victory, saving our client over $500,000 in known exposure and likely millions in long-term liability. The workers’ compensation judge granted our termination petition and denied the claimant’s claim petition, finding that the claimant fully recovered and was not entitled to wage loss or medical benefits. Through medical discovery, we uncovered pre-injury treatment that directly contradicted the claimant’s testimony. The judge favored our medical expert, citing no changes on pre- and post-injury MRIs as further evidence undermining the claim.
