White and Williams LLPExecutive Newsletter Summer 2008

Andy Susko Completes a Year as Bar President

by William D. Kennedy

As I recently passed the office of Andy Susko, Chair of White and Williams’ Litigation Department, I saw a rare sight: Andy was hard at work in his office and not on the road at a bar association event. Over the past year, as he served as President of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and during the multi-year run-up period into that office, Andy traveled the state, often working from White and Williams’ offices in Berwyn, Pittsburgh, and Allentown. I caught Andy long enough to ask him about the remarkable experience of leading the 30,000-member organization. Andy remarked, “I remember being told that

as president of the PBA, every day would seem incredibly long, but that the whole year would go by in a blink of an eye.

That statement has been true.” As president, Andy was the spokesperson for both

private practitioners and in-house counsel across the state. The principal voice of the legal profession to the public and all three branches of government, the PBA has 18 substantive law sections, and 45 committees with which Andy worked. Crisscrossing

the state countless times, Andy chaired meetings, addressed local bar associations, reviewed proposed legislation, gave multiple television, radio and print media interviews, conferenced with legislators, caucused with Governor Rendell, and met with all levels of the

Pennsylvania judiciary. Despite the complexity of the

FrOm the chair

Increasing and Embracing Diversityby George J. Hartnett Chair, Executive Committee

At White and Williams LLP, we believe that diversity broadens and enriches our work environment and allows us to better serve you—our clients. The core values of service, leadership, and acceptance of others are principles of our

firm. These ideals have spanned our firm’s 100 year history. The firm’s commitment to diversity and equal rights was seen, for example, in the 1950’s, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower requested W. Wilson White—son of founding partner Thomas Raeburn White—to author legal opinions that were instrumental in enforcing the desegregation of Little Rock Arkansas’s public schools. A decade later, the firm became one of the very first Philadelphia law firms to elect a woman into the partnership. Virginia Barton Wallace, a First Lieutenant with the Women’s Army Air Corps, practiced 30 years, and continued to consult for the firm until she was in her 90’s. White and Williams enjoys a diverse work force, from our staff through our partners.

Our commitment to diversity is seen even in our recruitment of new attorneys: six of 11 summer associates and law clerks are diverse, and seven are women. As part of our commitment to

hiring, retaining, and mentoring individuals who are prepared to meet the challenges of a diverse society, White and Williams proudly supports statewide Minority Attorney Conferences and diversity summits. It also sponsors the Martin Luther King, Jr. Fellowship program. Our participation in these events allows our attorneys to hone their mentoring and leadership skills. These opportunities foster a creative environment to prepare our attorneys to meet present and future client needs. By doing so, we not only assist in the development of diverse attorneys, but also support community service activities. White and Williams remains committed to developing outstanding attorneys, encouraging diversity, and providing the best service to our clients.

Pennsylvania Trial Strategy: Expert TestimonyMore than Magic Words: The Certainty of Expert Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Alternative Dispute Resolution: ArbitrationNo, We Won’t Take Your Word for It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Litigation: Service of ProcessCertified Mail: There is No Substitute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The EconomyNavigating Your Way through a Turbulent Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Insurance LawPennsylvania Addresses an Insurer’s Right to Reimbursement of Defense Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

New and Notable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The EconomyForeign Investment Strategies Help Create and Sustain a Successful Venture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table of Contents

(Continued on page 2)

Page 12

White and Williams LLPPage 2

position, it reminded Andy of his 25 years of courtroom work. “You gather information, data, facts, and opinions and then you seek consensus. You assimilate these collective views into meaningful, responsible positions, and then you advocate them to the people who ultimately have the authority to decide on them.”

Some of Andy’s most memorable achievements in this rapid-fire year include the 2007 judicial retention elections. As an outgrowth of the 2005 governmental pay raise issue, several advocacy groups urged the ouster of all judges eligible for retention. The PBA led a bipartisan effort to support judicial retention and educate voters about the judiciary. “I understood some of the popular resentment as a result of the after midnight legislative process that enacted the pay raise,” Andy explained. “But we thought it was vitally important that the understandable public reaction not extend to judges who deserved to be judged on their individual records of judicial service. Many good, thoughtful, and hard-working men and women judges were being unfairly targeted simply because they were wearing a black robe.”

Also during Andy’s tenure as President, the PBA formed a coalition of business and professional groups to successfully oppose proposed legislation that would have made legal services more expensive to clients through the imposition of a sales tax. “Along with local bar association leaders, I spent many days in Harrisburg, meeting with legislators to explain why a legal sales tax would hurt Pennsylvanians; it would have made more prohibitive both access to justice and the planning of people’s personal and business affairs.”

Along those same lines, Andy championed throughout the state the kind of pro bono services to which White and Williams has long been committed. “Our justice system is only as fair as it is accessible to everyone,” Andy often expressed in meetings that spurred participation. Under Andy, the PBA developed an aspirational goal of pro bono service by all attorneys to provide representation to clients who cannot afford it. The PBA also passed a resolution calling for increased state funding of legal services, and in limited circumstances, a right of all litigants to counsel in particular civil cases. These efforts culminated during a PBA “Day on the Hill” in the state capital, where hundreds of lawyers gathered to educate and promote the topic. For their efforts, Governor Ed Rendell placed an increase in legal services funding budget. To honor Andy’s commitment to pro bono work, the Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network—the agency responsible for administering all state legal aid programs—awarded him the “Outstanding Leadership in Support of Legal Services Award.”

Under Andy’s leadership, the PBA tapped the intellectual content and expertise of academia on important legal issues with an inaugural Law Policy Forum. Faculty from eight law schools debated the rule of law in the context of War on Terror and Immigration Reform. Andy also reconvened the Minority

Bar Diversity Summit to help law firms and businesses promote minority hiring, retention, and successful career paths. During Andy’s tenure, the PBA’s longtime commitment to civic education was furthered by a retreat hosted at White and Williams and attended by Pennsylvania’s First Lady and Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Marjorie Rendell. Law-related education supported by the organized bar was the focus of Andy’s presentation at a civics education summit held at the Governor’s residence. To raise money for abused and neglected children, Andy led the PBA’s Lawyers Bike Ride for Kids. For his efforts on behalf of the legal profession and the justice system, and for his furtherance of civics education in Pennsylvania, Andy received a Proclamation from Governor Rendell at the PBA’s Annual Meeting.

After his term ended in early June, Andy returned to full-time practice. Many of the White and Williams clients who saw Andy in the capitol corridors and conference rooms welcome his return. Andy defends professionals and companies in their most complex cases. “It’s a great privilege to be entrusted with the defense of cases involving the potential for significant damages, even punitive damages,” Andy observed. “I’m grateful to clients and my partners who supported my commitment to the betterment of our legal profession and the justice system and the PBA.” Remarking that he needed a new outlet for his boundless energy, Andy grinned, “I am eager to get back into the courtroom.”

Editor’s Note: Andy Susko’s year long commitment to

the profession was highlighted in a one hour “Profile

Series” interview that was televised on Pennsylvania

Cable News, the statewide public affairs cable news

network. During the interview, Andy emphasized that

the efforts would not have been possible without the

support of his partners at the firm and clients who

allowed his extensive participation during the course of

the 2007-08 bar year. You can reach Andy at

215-864-6228 or suskoa@whiteandwilliams.com.

Andy Susko Completes a Year as Bar President (Continued from page 1)

PennSylvania trial Strategy: exPert teStimOny

More than Magic Words: The Certainty of Expert Testimonyby William D. Kennedy

When the facts of a case are complicated, litigants need an expert. Any medical, scientific, or technical issues that stray beyond the knowledge customarily possessed by laypersons trigger the need for an expert. Although many experts hold specific degrees and certifications, Pennsylvania’s Rules of Evidence permit others to testify as an expert if the witness has the appropriate knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education for the subject matter in question.

There are limits, however, on an expert’s testimony— particularly for plaintiffs, as bearers of the burden of proof. Qualification to testify as an expert for a plaintiff is not a license to speculate; instead, the expert must limit oneself to opinions that are supported by competent evidence and holds with reasonable assurance within the field. Plaintiff’s expert must utter the magic words; he must testify that the opinions being offered are held “within a reasonable degree of certainty” within the field.

Recently, however, the Pennsylvania Superior Court clarified that there is nothing magic about such all-inclusive phrases. A general preface by a plaintiff-expert that all of the opinions being offered are held “within a reasonable degree of certainty” falls well short of the legal threshold for admissible expert opinion testimony. From a pretrial development and trial perspective, the decision emphasizes the advantage to defendants who develop and proffer a reasonable, alternative causal explanation for the injury.

Griffin v. University of Pittsburgh involved claims of alleged medical malpractice. The plaintiff-patient contended that an adult’s post-operative shoulder injury resulted from the negligent usage of physical restraints. The defendant-hospital denied usage of any such restraints, and instead proffered that the injury resulted from the patient having experienced an unwitnessed, nocturnal grand mal seizure. At trial, the plaintiff’s duly qualified expert prefaced his testimony with the magic words: he agreed that all of his opinions were held within a “reasonable degree of medical certainty...” Later, however, the plaintiff-expert admitted that the question of what caused the injury was a close call. He testified that between two proffered causes of the injury, the allegedly negligent causal event (the alleged used of restraints) was 51% likely to have been actual cause of harm, compared to a 49% likelihood that the injury resulted from the non-negligent cause (the seizure).

The Superior Court noted that although the plaintiff-expert had, indeed, uttered the customary incantation of certainty, when his testimony was viewed in its entirety—direct and cross- (Continued on page 5)

examination—the expert’s opinion was not, by any means, held “within a reasonable degree of certainty.” The Court ruled that a “51-49%” degree of “certainty” was merely an opinion that the alleged cause “could very properly account for” the injury, or that it “more likely than not” caused the injury. Noting that such phrases have been rejected in prior decisions as impermissibly uncertain, the Court ruled that the Griffin expert’s testimony fell short of the minimum standards. It sent the case back to the trial court for entry of a Judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendant-hospital.

When parties bearing the burden of proof cannot produce an expert (either due to court rulings or the utter lack of a willing expert) to provide direct evidence of the elements of negligence, they may try to fall back on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, res ipsa is a rule of circumstantial evidence that allows plaintiffs, without direct evidence of the elements of negligence, to present their case to the jury based on an inference of negligence. For res ipsa to apply, plaintiffs must show that the harm they are claiming is of a kind, which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence. They must also prove that other responsible causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons, have been sufficiently eliminated by the evidence. Lastly, the Court must conclude that the indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendant’s duty. Res ipsa loquitur is not a doctrine intended to excuse the absence of expert testimony—indeed, in res ipsa cases, plaintiffs may rely on expert testimony to establish one or more of the elements of proof. Instead, it is a

doctrine aimed at allowing the potential for a tort recovery even in the absence of direct evidence of exactly what happened.

In its 2007 decision, MacNutt v. Temple University Hospital, a Superior Court en banc panel (which included two Judges who have since taken seats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court) reiterated the limited application of res ipsa loquitur. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, Inc., the Superior Court held that if the defendant can counter the plaintiff’s res ipsa proofs, the defendant may negate the doctrine and be entitled to a directed verdict. “If the defendant produces evidence which is so conclusive as to leave no doubt that the event was caused by some outside agency for which the defendant was not responsible, or that it was of a kind which commonly occurs without negligence on the part of anyone and could not be avoided by the exercise of all reasonable care,

Page 3

White and Williams LLPPage 4

(Continued on page 6)

by Mark L. Parisi and Christopher D. Ballod

Supreme Court Refuses to Expand Review of Federal Arbitration Awards, Regardless of the Parties’ Contract

The benefit of an arbitration agreement is not only that it can prevent costly litigation, but it also allows the parties to design their own procedures for dispute resolution. Parties can assure that the arbitration takes place in a convenient forum, or that only certain issues will be addressed in order to prevent wasteful over-litigation should the business relationship become hostile. Parties can agree to the parameters defining a court’s review of the arbitration award—at least they could until a case decided during the United States Supreme Court’s latest term.

In March 2008, the Supreme Court held that a Federal court reviewing an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is bound to confirm the award unless the court finds one of the extreme circumstances enumerated in the Act. Unless the award is procured by fraud or the arbitrator is in league with one of the parties or there is some other truly outrageous circumstance, the Federal courts must confirm the arbitration award even if the parties had previously agreed to allow a greater scope of judicial review. The Supreme Court’s decision introduces a new potential pitfall to be avoided when negotiating arbitration agreements. Parties already busy hammering out the substance of a contract will have to weigh the pros and cons of referring to the FAA in their agreements, trying to design something to get around this new decision, or giving up on arbitration altogether if they want a customized arbitration process.

The Federal Arbitration ActCongress passed the FAA in 1925 because

Federal courts were resistant to alternative dispute resolution. Before the FAA, parties who negotiated an alternative to litigation had to face judges who were unlikely to enforce an arbitration agreement, much less enforce an award made by an arbitrator. The absence of any uniform standards for ADR made the award unreliable in the courts’ view, and made it very difficult to review irregularities in the arbitrator’s methods. The FAA’s framework addressed those concerns.

Congress recognized that the litigation process could be prohibitively expensive and time consuming and that parties in a dispute ought to be afforded a reliable and enforceable alternative. Arbitration can be tailored to the parties’ needs on a case-by-case basis, allowing for a flexible approach suiting certain types of disputes. Arbitration also alleviates some of the burden on the

overworked court system. Congress wanted not only to overcome the obstacles to enforcing negotiated arbitrations, but also to encourage this alternative.

The resulting Act goes so far as to state that arbitration agreements are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” This presumption in favor of enforcing the parties’ contract also sets forth the Act’s limitations on a court asked to review an arbitration award. A court must enter judgment confirming an arbitration award unless one of the following conditions exists:

(1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;

(2) there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators;

(3) the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing… or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy… or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or

(4) the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

In short, the court cannot review and revise any decision on the substance of the dispute and must confirm the award unless some outlandish scenario played out indicating that the arbitration process itself was unfairly flawed. Likewise, a reviewing court cannot modify an award unless there was some “material miscalculation” or mistake in the form and any such modification cannot affect the merits of the decision.

Notwithstanding the scope of allowable review set forth in the FAA, with the parties’ intentions central in their minds, the

alternative DiSPute reSOlutiOn: arbitratiOn

No, We Won’t Take Your Word For It

Page 5

More Than Magic Words: Expert Testimony (Continued from page 3)

he may be entitled to a directed verdict.” Citing Supreme Court cases going back over one hundred years, and with an emphasis rarely seen in published opinions, the McNutt Court wrote that “if there is any other cause to which with equal fairness the injury may be attributed (and a jury will not be permitted to guess which condition caused the injury), an inference of negligence will not be permitted to be drawn against defendant.”

Decisions like these buttress the need for detailed trial preparation with respect to the opposing party’s experts. Clients will be served best by asking defense counsel to review the appropriate literature, regulations, policies, and studies that might force an adverse expert to concede some uncertainty in her or

his opinion. Development of a strong alternative to the causation theory may prevent plaintiffs from falling back on a res ipsa cushion. As experienced trial counsels know, there are times when even the magic words—“a reasonable degree of certainty” —aren’t enough.

Bill Kennedy is a Partner in the Litigation Department

who defends claims of injury, death, commercial

damage, and other claims arising from health care,

construction, products, commercial premises, auto

accidents, and alcohol. You can reach Bill

at 610-240-4703 or kennedyw@whiteandwilliams.com.

by John D. Balaguer and William L. Doerler

While many people equate deliveries by Federal Express, UPS, and others to delivery via the United States Postal Service, these methods are not interchangeable in the context of service of statutorily mandated legal documents. That is the lesson learned from Leatherbury v. Greenspun, 939 A.2d 1284 (Del. 2007), a case that White and Williams LLP’s Appellate Practice Group successfully argued before the Delaware Supreme Court on behalf of Defendant Greenspun.

In Leatherbury, the plaintiff sought to extend the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice case by invoking a statutory tolling provision. Under the tolling provision, which is similar to provisions in many other states, the plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases can extend the two-year statute of limitations for a period of 90 days. The provision is intended to allow plaintiffs additional time to investigate potential claims. Plaintiffs can only toll the statute of limitations, however, if they serve the defendants a Notice of Intent to Investigate that complies with the terms of the tolling statute, 18 Del. C. § 6856(3). One statutory requirement is that the Notice of Intent to Investigate be sent “by certified mail, return receipt requested.” The plaintiff in Leatherbury, however, sent his notice via Federal Express.

The Delaware Supreme Court, following the old adage that unambiguous statutes are not subject to judicial interpretation, held that the term “certified mail” could only refer to the United States Postal Service’s certified mail. The term does not include delivery through private carriers such as Federal Express. Although some statutes provide for service “by certified mail, or its equivalent,” Section 6856(3) does not contain language allowing service via an “equivalent” method. As the Supreme Court noted, in order to secure the benefits of the tolling statute, plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases have an affirmative duty

to establish compliance with the terms of section 6856(3), and courts have “no authority to vary the terms of a statute of clear meaning or ignore mandatory provisions.” Because the plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to Investigate did not comply with the statute, his complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.

While the result in Leatherbury could be viewed as a harsh result based upon a technicality, equitable arguments cannot overcome specific statutory directives. When a statute mandates the use of certified mail, there is no substitute. If there are concerns about delivery unrelated to a statutory mandate, rather than use a substitute method of delivery, litigants should abide by the statutory requirements and, if warranted, also send the notice by a secondary method. Sending an additional notice eliminates the risk that a court will later conclude that a substitute or “equivalent” method of service did not comply with statutory requirements.

John Balaguer, Managing Partner of the firm’s

Wilmington office focuses his practice on complex

litigation. You can reach John at 302-467-4501

or balaguerj@whiteandwilliams.com.

Bill Doerler is a member of the firm’s Appellate

Practice Group and has successfully briefed and

argued cases addressing a wide variety of issues,

including medical malpractice, personal injury,

and workers’ compensation.

You can reach Bill at 215-864-6383

or doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com.

litigatiOn: Service OF PrOceSS

Certified Mail: There is No Substitute

the ecOnOmy

Navigating Your Way Through a Turbulent Economy

Economic indicators including rising price of oil, high cost of groceries, unemployment rates, and federal interest rates are having an impact on the stability of today’s market. And many banks, lenders, and financial institutions are facing a credit crunch as a result of turbulent times in our economy.

In an effort to keep up with the ever-changing marketplace, White and Williams LLP and KYW Newsradio teamed up on Friday, June 6, 2008 to host “The New Realities of Business Lending in the Turbulent Economy” at the Four Seasons Hotel in Philadelphia. Panelists addressed questions and concerns, specifically related to the housing market, as these institutions are seeing a lack of capital due to delinquencies and foreclosures from their borrowers.

William Dunkelberg, a Professor of Economics at Temple University’s Fox School of Business and Management moderated the discussion of expert panelists. Tom Rogers, head of White and Williams’ Real Estate and Institutional Finance Practice Group, provided an analytical look at how some firm clients have adopted a conservative, lender-specific approach in light of the increasing number of foreclosures. Joel Naroff, Chief Economist for Commerce Bancorp and Herb Taylor, Vice President, and Corporate Secretary for the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia provided an economic overview, future outlook, and discussion of trends facing lenders. William McPadden, Senior Managing Director of John Hancock Financial Service’s Real Estate Finance Group, provided insight into the commercial lending sector.

“The New Realities of Business Lending” was the fourth in a series of programs where KYW Newsradio and White and Williams have brought together hundreds of business leaders to educate, inform and network. Previous topics have included, “China and Greater Philadelphia: 21st Century Partners,” “Funding the Future: Private Equity and Your Company’s Next Step,” and “Keeping Success in Business Succession: A Dollars and Sense Approach.”

A podcast of the program is available online at www.kyw1060.com. A fifth breakfast seminar has been scheduled for later this fall. Details and registration information will be made available at a later date. Be sure to check www.whiteandwilliams.com periodically for updates.

Tom Rogers heads the Real Estate and Institutional

Finance Practice Group. He focuses his practice on

commercial real estate matters. You can reach Tom

at 215-864-7190 or rogerst@whiteandwilliams.com.

White and Williams LLPPage 6

majority of federal circuit courts of appeals have held that parties could modify the scope of review for a court called upon to review an arbitration award. In other words, the majority of federal circuit courts would allow the parties to design their own arbitration method and have allowed the parties to agree to have a Federal court review and revise a reward on a more liberal basis than the FAA would otherwise allow. Only the Ninth and Tenth Circuits (covering the federal courts in much of the western United States) held that parties are bound by the FAA’s scope of review.

Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc.In this case arising out of an Oregon commercial lease,

the U.S. Supreme Court was called upon to resolve the circuit court’s split on the ability of parties to modify the scope of review. Mattel leased a manufacturing facility from Hall Street. Mattel agreed to indemnify Hall Street for any environmental costs. When the hazardous chemical, TCE, was found on the site, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality began an enforcement action under the Drinking Water Quality Act. Mattel agreed to clean up the site. Before the cleanup was completed, Mattel terminated its lease with Hall Street. Hall Street sued Mattel in Federal court for breaching the lease agreement by early termination and by failing to indemnify Hall Street for the cleanup costs.

The parties agreed to stay the Federal court suit and to have the indemnification dispute instead determined by arbitration. The parties further agreed that the arbitration award would be subject to the approval of the federal District Court where the case had originally been filed. They also agreed that the court could vacate or modify the award if the arbitrator’s findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence, or if the arbitrator’s conclusions of law were erroneous. Significantly, the Federal judge to whom the case had been assigned approved the arbitration procedure designed by the parties.

The arbitration resulted in an award in Mattel’s favor, with the arbitrator finding that the Drinking Water Quality Act dealt with issues of human health rather than environmental issues. The award was appealed on agreed grounds to the District Court where the original suit had been filed. The judge who had approved the arbitration procedure and the appeal grounds found that the arbitrator had misconstrued the law, so he vacated the award. After a series of appeals and remands, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the judge had exceeded the allowable scope of review under the FAA. Hall Street appealed to the Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit. The Court held that parties cannot modify the scope of review set out in the FAA. Thus, even if the arbitrator did misconstrue the law, the District Court had to confirm the award.

No, We Won’t Take Your Word For it (Continued from page 4)

(Continued on page 11)

inSurance law

Pennsylvania Addresses an Insurer’s Right to Reimbursement of Defense Costs

Page 7

by Randy J. Maniloff and Taryn B. Kindred

Is it the Duty to Defend or the Duty to Lend?It is widely known and not seriously disputed that the duty to

defend is broad. It is perhaps for this reason that any attempt by an insurer to limit the duty to defend is sure to be met with policy-holders crying “foul.” And at no time does the shrill get louder than when, following a determination that the duty to defend did not in fact arise, an insurer attempts to recover defense costs from an insured to whom it provided a defense. Insureds typically respond vocally that reimbursement of defense costs is simply not a right that exists for insurers, and that any attempt at reimbursement is a backdoor narrowing of the broad duty to defend.

Numerous courts nationally have addressed an insurer’s right to reimbursement of defense costs, but they are generally split on the issue. Two schools of thought have emerged. In May 2008, the first Pennsylvania appellate court to address the reimbursement issue had to decide in which school to enroll. The Pennsylvania Superior Court opted to reject an insurer’s right to reimbursement of defense costs following a determination that a duty to defend did not exist.

The Two Schools of ThoughtOne of the first and best known decisions on an insurer’s

right to reimbursement of defense costs is Buss v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Transamerica Ins. Co.), 939 P.2d 766 (Cal. 1997). In Buss, a 27 count complaint was filed against the insured, but only one count was potentially covered. Transamerica, the liability carrier, provided a defense under a reservation of rights, including the right to deny that any cause of action was actually covered and it also reserved the right to be reimbursed for defense

costs for non-covered causes of action.

The underlying suit settled for $8.5 million and Transamerica was required to pay $1 million in defense costs. However, Transamerica retained an expert who

estimated that the defense for the one covered count cost between $21,000 to $55,000. Thus, Transamerica sought reimbursement of the defense expenses it paid for the non-covered counts. The court held that, based on its policy, Transamerica did not have a duty to defend the insured for claims that were not potentially covered since it was not paid a premium to defend non-covered claims. Relying on the law of restitution, the court held that Transamerica had a right of reimbursement because the insured

would have been unjustly enriched if the insurer incurred the expense of defending against the non-covered claims. (The court also acknowledged that there are practical issues concerning the insurer’s ability to allocate defense costs between covered and uncovered claims.)

Courts that reach the opposite outcome, rejecting an insurer’s right to reimbursement of defense costs, often do so by relying on the rationale of Terra Nova Insurance Company, Ltd. v. 900 Bar, Inc., et al., 887 F.2d 1213 (3d Cir. 1989) (Pennsylvania law). In Terra Nova, the Third Circuit held that permitting such recovery would be inconsistent with the insurer’s offer to defend under a reservation of rights. As the Terra Nova Court saw it, an insurer offers to defend under a reservation of rights because it is uncertain whether it will have a duty to indemnify. By defending the insured, the insurer avoids the risk that the insured’s defense will be lackadaisical. If it is, the insurer’s exposure could be greater if it is determined that coverage is owed. Thus, a defense under a reservation of rights benefits both the insurer and the insured. Therefore, the Terra Nova court reasoned that if an insurer could recover defense costs, the insured foots the bill to protect the insurer’s interests.

The Pennsylvania ApproachRecently, the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided American

& Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Center, Inc., 2008 PA Super 94, becoming the first Pennsylvania appellate decision to weigh in on an insurer’s right to reimbursement. The court reviewed the Buss and Terra Nova rationales and adopted Terra Nova, ruling that a carrier was not entitled to reimbursement of defense costs absent policy language that explicitly permitted such right. In Jerry’s Sport, the insured, a firearm wholesaler and distributor, was sued for negligence in the marketing and distribution of handguns which resulted in injury and death. Jerry’s Sport tendered the suit to American & Foreign, its liability insurer. A&F sent Jerry’s Sport a letter advising that it would provide it with a defense under a full reservation of rights, including the right to seek reimbursement of all defense costs advanced in the event that it was determined that the insurer had no duty to defend. A&F paid for discovery, the retention of five experts and funded a six-week trial, which concluded with an adverse judgment against the plaintiffs for lack of standing.

Before the trial court ruled on the tort claim, A&F commenced a declaratory judgment action against Jerry’s Sport seeking an order that it had no duty to defend or indemnify and sought reimbursement for attorney’s fees and costs paid on behalf of the insured in the tort action. Following various procedural maneuvering, the question of A&F’s right to recover defense costs made its way to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Court

(Continued on page 9)

White and Williams LLPPage 8

New and Notable

Dori Desautel Broudy, of our Insurance Coverage Group, has been appointed to serve on the Insurance Programs Committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association. Dori will also be a guest on “The Well Advised Woman” on WNJC 1360 AM later this fall to discuss what it takes to be a successful woman working in the Philadelphia metro area.

Merritt Cole, chair of our Securities Law Practice Group, served as a panelist for “Private Placements—Legal and Practical Considerations,” a program sponsored by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. Merritt also served on the Planning Committee for the 2008 Business Bar Leaders Conference sponsored by the Business Law section of the American Bar Association. Recently, he was appointed to the Advisory Panel of the Business Lawyers’ Institute sponsored annually by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute.

Nancy Conrad, of our Labor and Employment Group, was honored by Lehigh Valley Magazine as a 2008 Mover and Shaper in recognition of her achievements and contributions to the Lehigh Valley.

Kevin Cottone, of our Litigation Department, has been appointed co-chair of the Medical Legal Committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association. Kevin also spoke on malpractice and personal injury law issues during an interview, which aired on three of Clear Channel’s public affairs talk shows in Philadelphia.

Chuck Eppolito, of our Healthcare Group, has been elected to serve a second term as secretary of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Bill Hussey, of our Tax, Pensions and Estates Group, presented “Life Insurance in Charitable and Planned Giving” at Planned Giving Day hosted by the Planned Giving Group of Greater New York.

Kim Kocher, chair of our Appellate Group, has been appointed to serve as chair of the Amicus Curiae Brief Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Randy Maniloff, of our Commercial Litigation Department, published “Insurance-Palooza: 7th Annual Look at the Year’s Ten Most Significant Coverage Decisions” in the January 10, 2008 issue of Mealey’s Litigation Report: Insurance. Randy also published “Course and Scope: A Breath of Fresh Air for Insurers in Rogue Employee Claims” in the April 2, 2008 issue of Mealey’s Emerging Insurance Disputes.

Dan Martz, of our Litigation Department, presented on “The Current State of Medical Malpractice Law in PA” at the May meeting of the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel.

Mike Mentzel and John Pauciulo, both in our Business Department, gave a presentation on private equity funds and legal issues in acquisitions at the M&A Growth Conference hosted by the M&A Source.

Wes Payne, of our Litigation Department, authored several essays including “Carroll v. Avallone: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Declines to Expand the Holding of Snider and Clarifies the Meaning of Uncontroverted Evidence” (Pennsylvania Defense Institute), “Diversity: Contrary Trends in Politics and the Law” (The Legal Intelligencer), and “Diversity” (Defense Research Institute Committee Spotlight). Wes was also appointed as chair of the Diversity Sub-Committee for the Life, Health and Disability Section of the Defense Research Institute and vice chair of the Minority Bar Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Marie Plyter, of our Healthcare Group, spoke on medical documentation issues to the Cardiothoracic Surgical ICU at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and to the Jefferson University School of Nursing.

Mike Rausch, of our Litigation Department, spoke on the legal implications of vehicle logistics, shipping policies and state mandatory vehicle damage disclosure laws to vehicle logistics personnel of Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

Tom Rogers, chair of our Real Estate and Institutional Finance Group, gave a presentation on title and survey matters to real estate paralegals during a seminar hosted by the Institute for Paralegal Education.

Jim Scott, of our Litigation Department, presented “Pending Products Liability Cases before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court” to the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel.

Judith Sullivan, of our Business Department, has been appointed secretary of the International Law Subcommittee of the New Jersey Bar Association. She also served as a panelist at the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education program, “Applying Principles of Contract Law to Drafting, Negotiating, and Litigating Agreements.”

Page 9

Pennsylvania Addresses an Insurer’s Right to Reimbursement of Defense Costs:

considered the Buss rule, but it was ultimately persuaded by Terra Nova. Thus, the Court rejected A&F’s right to reimbursement absent an express provision in the insurance contract. The Court held that the insurance policy governed the parties’ relationship and it did not contain a provision providing for reimbursement of defense costs expended on disputed claims.

The Superior Court further considered Pennsylvania law and the duty to defend. Pennsylvania courts require an insurer to defend the entire lawsuit against the insured whenever the complaint potentially falls within the coverage of the policy, despite the presence of covered and non-covered claims. The insurer’s defense obligation was not only a duty, but also a right afforded to the insured. A&F exercised its right to defend Jerry’s Sport by retaining counsel and sending the insured a reservation of rights letter explicitly reserving the right to recover defense costs for non-covered claims. The court interpreted A&F’s actions as evidence that A&F was prepared for a ruling that there was no coverage, but given that the claims may be potentially covered, A&F exercised its right to defend.

The court noted that A&F retained control in the tort action in order to mitigate any potential indemnification. Thus, relying on the Terra Nova rationale, the Superior Court held that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it concluded that Jerry’s Sport was unjustly enriched by the provision of a defense by A&F.

Following Jerry’s Sport, absent further word from an en banc Superior Court panel or perhaps the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Pennsylvania’s broad duty to defend does not include an exception for the recovery of defense costs from an insured following a determination that no duty to defend was owed. When it comes to defense costs in Pennsylvania, the toothpaste cannot go back into the tube.

Randy Maniloff is a Partner in our Commercial

Litigation Department and concentrates his practice

on the representation of insurers in coverage disputes.

You can reach Randy at 215-864-6311

or maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com.

Taryn Kindred is also a member of our

Commercial Litigation Department. She represents

insurers in various coverage disputes involving

general liability. You can reach her at 215-864-6308 or

kindredt@whiteandwilliams.com.

(Continued from page 7)

Dick Kolb Elected President of Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel Richard A. Kolb, former Chair of the Healthcare Practice

Group, became the 43rd President of the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel (PADC) during its recent Annual Meeting at Llanerch Country Club in Havertown, Pennsylvania. Dick brings over 30 years experience as an active trial lawyer defending physicians and healthcare institutions into his new role as president. His position allows him to bring his understanding of the law to help promote and further the interests of the PADC through involvement in the legal community, legislative and judicial reform efforts, improvements in Court procedures and other professional and social advancements.

“I hope to encourage a younger generation of defense lawyers to become part of our organization and to demonstrate to long-time and newer attorneys in the community that a civil litigation practice is still relevant and highly rewarding,” Dick remarked upon assuming his new duties.

Keeping with White and Williams’ long-standing commitment and involvement in professional associations and

bar organizations, Dick follows Thomas Raeburn White Jr. (the firm’s founder), John Dautrich, Joseph Pinto, and Peter Samson as the fifth attorney from the firm to be elected PADC president. Dick is also a member of various professional organizations working to promote the defense perspective and the interests of healthcare providers including the Medical-Legal Committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association, the Defense Research Institute and committees of the Pennsylvania and American Bar Associations.

You can reach Dick Kolb at 215-864-7112

or kolbr@whiteandwilliams.com.

White and Williams LLP

the ecOnOmy

Foreign Investment Strategies Help Create and Sustain a Successful VentureForeign direct investment plays a major role in the U.S.

economy, both as a key driver of the economy and as an important source of exports and jobs. The U.S. has been a favorable place to do business, providing foreign investors with a stable and welcoming market place. Still, there are a number of factors – from the legal system to tax infrastructures to labor and employment issues – to consider before you embark on such a venture.

To explore those factors, White and Williams LLP hosted “Riding the Wave of Foreign Investment: Strategies for Foreign Buyers, U.S. Sellers and their Advisors.” Held at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York City, the June 5, 2008 breakfast seminar provided an overview and answered specific questions for our clients – potential foreign buyers, private equity firms, banks, consultants, accountants and other decision makers looking to do business on an international level.

White and Williams attorneys, Judith Sullivan moderated the seminar while Carl Koerner discussed the regulatory aspects of foreign investment in U. S. companies. His topics ranged from the recent Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 to the various federal and state regulatory requirements which restrict foreign ownership of strategic U.S. industries. Scott Borsack talked about tax efficient structures for inbound foreign investments.”

Joining them as panelists were Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, economist and author of Futurecast: How Superpowers, Populations, and Globalization Will Change the Way You

Live and Work and the former United States Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs who gave a statistical overview of the economic affairs for foreign investment in the United States and Magnús Bjarnason, Executive Vice President of International Banking of Glitnir Bank who discussed challenges and opportunities for foreign investors looking to do business in the United States.

Judith J. Sullivan is a Partner in our Business

Department and a member of our International

Practice Group. You can reach Judy at 212-631-4414

or sullivanj@whiteandwilliams.com.

Carl Koerner is Counsel of our

Business Department and practices

out of our New York office.

You can reach Carl at 212-631-4403

or koernerc@whiteandwilliams.com.

Scott Borsack is a Partner in our Business

Department and focuses his practice on tax and

estate planning and tax controversy defense.

You can reach Scott at 215-864-7048

or borsacks@whiteandwilliams.com.

Insurance coverage law is constantly changing. Court decisions and minor nuances in policies can have major ramifications for our clients. Building on last year’s popular program, White and Williams is pleased to invite clients to return to school for “Coverage College” on September 17, 2008. Through presentations, break-out sessions, and networking opportunities, White and Williams’ “faculty” will address the emerging issues and trends including:• Intellectualpropertyissuesandrelatedcoverageproblems• Badfaith• Relationshipswithreinsurersand“followthesettlements”• Constructiondefectsandcontractualliability• AdditionalInsuredtenders• Tryinganinsurancecoveragecase

For registration and additional information about our 2008 Coverage College, please visit www.whiteandwilliams.com and click on “Events” or call Katie McDonald at 215-864-7161.

Insurance Coverage: “Coverage College” Returns

Page 10

Page 12Page 11

White and Williams LLPwww.whiteandwilliams.com

PennsylvaniaThe Frederick Building

3500 Winchester Road – Suite 200Allentown, PA 18104Phone: 610-435-8414

One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310

Berwyn, PA 19312Phone: 610-251-0466

1800 One Liberty PlacePhiladelphia, PA 19103Phone: 215-864-7000

The Frick Building437 Grant Street, Suite 1001

Pittsburgh, PA 15219Phone: 412-566-3520

New JerseyLibertyView

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 400Cherry Hill, NJ 08002Phone: 856-317-3600

The AtriumEast 80 Route 4

Paramus, NJ 07652Phone: 201-368-7200

Delaware824 N. Market Street, Suite 902

P.O. Box 709Wilmington, DE 19899Phone: 302-654-0424

New YorkOne Penn Plaza

250 W. 34th Street, Suite 1801New York, NY 10119Phone: 212-244-9500

This newsletter is a periodic publication of White and Williams LLP and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult a lawyer concerning your own situation with any specific legal question you may have. For further information about these contents, please contact the Editor.

Editor: William D. Kennedy 610-240-4703 kennedyw@whiteandwilliams.com

No, We Won’t Take Your Word For It (Continued from page 6)

ImplicationsThe Hall Street v. Mattel decision is technically limited to agreements implicating

the FAA. That means that arbitration agreements subject to state law are not controlled by this decision. That said, this decision will, at a minimum, carry great persuasive weight in any state adopting the Uniform Arbitration Act (modeled after the FAA) or otherwise modeling its laws on the FAA. This would include Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York (whose Act was the model for the FAA), and Delaware.

At first blush, restricting the ability of the courts to become too involved with arbitrations appears to be a good thing. The whole point of ADR is to avoid the often-costly and burdensome court system. Allowing a court to address the merits of the dispute after the arbitration could threaten to make the arbitration process little more than a discovery tool leading up to the “real thing.”

However, this can be a problem when the parties specifically negotiate the arbitration agreement with the understanding that there will be some fail-safe if the arbitrator’s decision is too far out of line. If the potential liability is so great that the risk of an award based on missed facts or misapplied law is just unacceptable, the parties have no choice but to abandon ADR as an option.

With this in mind, it may be possible to avoid the problem by addressing it in the arbitration agreement. The arbitration clause could incorporate American Arbitration Association guidelines, which specifically exempt the scope of review provisions in the applicable state or federal arbitration act. Alternatively, the parties could simply state in their agreement that it is not to be governed by the FAA. Then, the agreement would also include language making the enforceability of the arbitration result contingent on a modified scope of review as designed by the parties. The logic of designing an arbitration clause in this fashion is to avoid invoking the FAA or any state arbitration law and to create instead a custom dispute resolution agreement that makes appeal on any grounds more a matter of contract and breach of contract than a matter of federal or state arbitration rules. As an ultimate safe harbor, the parties can also state in the arbitration agreement that the arbitration will only be enforceable if the modified scope of review is found to be enforceable. Otherwise, the matter is retried in the courts. Such a provision could be costly, for sure, but some parties in some matters may need it before they will want to agree to submit substantial matters to arbitration. It is always a good idea to save money on litigation—as long as the right result can be obtained in the process.

The full impact of the Hall Street v. Mattel decision may not be felt until cases involving arbitration provisions work up to the state appellate courts. In the meantime, it is best to continue to bear in mind the fundamental tenet of contract law: the clearer the parties’ intent is expressed, the more likely it is to be enforced. With this new decision out of the Supreme Court, the drafting of arbitration clauses just got a little more difficult.

Mark Parisi is Chair of the firm’s Construction Law Practice Group.

He can be reached at 215-864-7180 or parisim@whiteandwilliams.com.

Chris Ballod focuses his practice on complex matters

involving product liability, construction related

liability, appellate and commercial litigation.

He can be reached at 215-864-7129 or ballodc@whiteandwilliams.com.

Page 12

White and Williams LLPPage 12Page 11

White and Williams LLPPage 12

internatiOnal buSineSS

Iceland: Land of Fire and Iceby Judith J. Sullivan

Editor’s Note: Cool off from a summer heat wave with a page from Business partner Judith Sullivan’s travel journal about her work with clients in Iceland.

My overnight flight from New York to the most western state in Europe, an island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean touched down at dawn in the middle of an eerie black lava field, surrounded by steam laden mountain peaks, some of which I was convinced were volcanoes. The wind howled, the temperature was freezing, and the ice pellets were coming down sideways from a purple gray sky. I was only 600 miles from the Arctic Circle. I was here to see good friends, trusted colleagues, and treasured clients. I was in Iceland.

After seeking the assistance of a kind local to de-ice the key lock on the door of my rental car, I traveled past mighty mountain ranges and picturesque seaside villages to the low, grassy isthmus and hot springs of the capital city, Reykjavik – an area known to Vikings in the late 800’s as “smoky creek.” The Vikings, however, were not the first inhabitants of Iceland. Before them, there were a few Irish hermit monks who journeyed to this lonely land of fire and ice in 32-oar boats in what must have been one of the most remarkable voyages in European seamanship. In the well-developed city of Reykjavik, I could easily take

a taxi, and sometimes even walk to the offices of our largest Icelandic clients in this miniature titan of a nation. White and Williams counsels many prominent Icelandic companies and financial institutions in connection with their United States investments. Our legal advice covers areas such as corporate, merger and acquisition, securities, tax, real estate, immigration, banking and regulatory compliance, and litigation. Most people would be surprised to learn of the magnitude of our Icelandic clients’ investments in United States companies. You may have read about them in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, or, in the British newspapers.

I met with our clients in diverse locales ranging from high tech state-of-the-art offices, tiny fishing restaurants along the bay, or my hotel (which was partly fueled by geothermal power). Iceland leads the world with broadband penetration rate, as well as literacy, longevity, income and social cohesion, all of which are first-rate by world standards. Our Icelandic clients include an international investment company, FL Group, a large Nordic bank, Glitnir Bank and a worldwide distributed live theatre show called “Theater Mogul,” just to name a few.

With clients, I traveled to Thingvellier, thirty miles inland. High ranked amongst the most noblest of pilgrimage places of the world, Thingvellier is where the oldest continuing parliament This is the original site of W.G. Collingwood’s famous 19th Century

interpretation of the Althing.(Continued on page 13)

White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams LLPPage 14Page 13

White and Williams was one of the sponsors for the 2008 Baiada Center Entrepreneurship Conference hosted by Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business on June 4, 2008 at World Café Live in Philadelphia.

Each year, the school hosts a business plan competition in which the winner of the event wins monetary awards, an opportunity to start their business from the Baiada Center business center located on the school’s campus, as well as guidance from a legal, marketing, and strategic planning professional.

Summalux Technologies emerged as the winner of the competition and will be provided five hours of free legal advice from John Pauciulo, Partner of our Business Department on a wide array of topics including structuring, negotiating and documenting complex business transactions, mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance transactions, development projects and securities offerings.

Rosebud Tween Undergarments, and Microstructure Sensitive Design of Materials were awarded second and third place honors, respectively, of the 2008 Business Plan Competition.

John Pauciulo is a Partner in our Business

Department and advises clients with respect to

corporate and commercial transactions. He can

be reached at 215-864-7146

or pauciuloj@whiteandwilliams.com.

White and Williams Sponsors Entrepreneurship Award

(the Althing) met from 930 to 1798. Thingvellier is a fair five mile plain with a towering boundary of cliffs, encircled by mountains. It sits beside Iceland’s largest lake, amidst a rift where tectonic plates meet. The site appears much as it did in the 10th century, as well as in W.G. Collingwood’s famous 19th Century interpretation of The Althing. Thingvellier was recently listed as a World Heritage Site. It seemed a fitting place to conclude my visit as a lawyer in this fascinating land.

For more information on the firm’s international

practice, please contact Judy Sullivan,

at 212-631-4414 or sullivanj@whiteandwilliams.com.

Iceland: Land of Fire and Ice (Continued from page 12)

Corporate Directors Alert: A Threat To The Business Judgment Rule?

The Delaware-based Bankruptcy Court recently issued a decision that undermines the “business judgment rule” defense against “breach of loyalty” complaints. In In re Bridgeport Holdings (May 30, 2008), the court held that averments that directors and officers failed to duly inform themselves of available information sufficiently alleged a breach of the duty of care so as to avoid dismissal of the case pursuant to the “business judgment rule.” For more information about the case, please contact Marc Casarino at 302-467-4520 or casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com

Save the Date: OctOber 8, 2008

Virginia Barton Wallace AwardOn October 8, 2008, female attorneys and clients of White and Williams will gather to

celebrate the presentation of the Virginia Barton Wallace Award to Emmy Award winning radio and television news journalist Cokie Roberts. The Virginia Barton Wallace Award, named for Ginny Wallace who became White and Williams’ first female partner in 1961, includes a $10,000 donation to the awardee’s charity of choice. The Award was established to honor Ginny’s memory and commemorate her contributions as an exceptional female lawyer and pioneer. Past recipients have included Pulitzer Prize winning historian Doris Kearns Goodwin and Philadelphia news anchor Renee Chenault-Fattah.

White and Williams LLPPage 14

White and Williams LLP1800 One Liberty Place

Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395

presortedfirst class mail

u.s. postage

paidBellmawr, NJpermit No. 64

At White and Williams, we think all of our attorneys are super. The results of a recent poll conducted by the publishers of Law & Politics show that for 28 of us, our peers agree. An annual poll across Pennsylvania invites attorneys to rank competitors and adversaries based on their performance and level of work. Please join us in congratulating the men and women of White and Williams who have been named to the 2008 slate of Pennsylvania “Super Lawyers.”

Congratulations, “Super Lawyers”

Thomas Allen Insurance Coverage

Jerrold Anders Construction Litigation

Gary Biehn Mergers & Acquisitions

Terry Cavanaugh Civil Litigation Defense

Guy Cellucci Insurance Coverage

Kevin Cottone Personal Injury Defense

James Donohue General Litigation

Joseph Foster Personal Injury Defense

Thomas Goutman Class Action/Mass Torts

George Hartnett Mergers & Acquisitions

Richard Jordan Business Litigation

Lori Kachmar Workers’ Compensation

Robert Kargen Bankruptcy

& Creditor/Debtor Rights

Richard Kolb Health Care

Donald Ladd Health Care

Christopher Leise Civil Litigation Defense

Randy Maniloff Insurance Coverage

Michael Olsan Insurance Coverage

Peter Parashes General Litigation

Michael Plevyak Civil Litigation Defense

Thomas Rogers Real Estate

Anthony Salvino Workers’ Compensation

Peter Samson Civil Litigation Defense

Patricia Santelle Insurance Coverage

Richard Shusterman Insurance Coverage

Andrew Susko Civil Litigation Defense

Gale White Insurance Coverage

Stephen Zivitz Tax