KM counsel were successful in winning summary judgment in Superior Court for Camden County on behalf of its client, an individual who owned a Limited Liability Company that operated a horse farm in South Jersey. The case involved claims of serious and permanent injury to a young boy who sustained head and orthopedic injuries resulting from a fall from a horse at the client’s farm. Claims against KM’s client were that under the “Participation Theory,” recognized by New Jersey as a means of imposing personal liability on members or officers of a corporate or business entity, the client had a duty to implement and enforce safety procedures that would have prevented the accident and resulting injuries. Plaintiff also argued that even if the Court would not find that personal liability under the Participation Theory could attach, the corporate veil should be pierced since KM’s client was the sole member of the LLC and testified as to his involvement in all aspects of the business.

In moving papers and at oral argument, KM was able to convince the Judge that the Participation Theory, while described as a viable means of attaching personal liability to individual members or officers of a business entity, did not apply and could not apply to the facts at hand in the case because there was not evidence of sufficient participation by the client in the alleged commission of the tort. Similarly, the Plaintiff’s corporate veil theory was inapplicable because there had been no evidence developed to warrant this move by the Court.

For further information about this matter, please contact Jay Branderbit at 267-702-1713, or Jbranderbit@kentmcbride.com


Jay Branderbit and Caitlin Harley obtained summary judgment on behalf of K/M’s client, a public entity, in an action stemming from claims that plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell on a transient defect at the client’s premises. The basis for the motion, and ultimate dismissal, was that plaintiff could not surmount the Title 59 injury threshold of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff argued that her medical expert did establish permanent injury and limitation of function, however, K/M was able to successfully rebut this claim by demonstrating that Plaintiff’s expert simply indicated a limitation, as opposed to the requisite loss, of function.

For further information, please contact Jay Branderbit (Jbranderbit@kentmcbride.com) or Caitlin Harley (Charley@kentmcbride.com)


On March 13, 2017, Aman K. Sharma, Esquire, of K/M’s Wilmington office, obtained summary judgment in favor of an automobile insurance carrier for personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits in which the Plaintiff’s last demand before trial was the policy limit—$300,000. The Plaintiff alleged bodily injuries and lost wages as the result of an alleged hit-and-run accident.

In the aftermath of the alleged accident, Plaintiff was asked to attend two (2) Independent Medical Examinations (“IMEs”). Plaintiff failed to appear for either without cause. Mr. Sharma argued, in his Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf the carrier, that Plaintiff’s refusal to appear for the IMEs constituted a material breach of the insurance agreement between Plaintiff and the insurance carrier and that Delaware courts have held that before an insurer is required to make payments on a claim, the insured must comply with all statutory obligations as well as contractual conditions set forth in the policy. In addition, Plaintiff’s failure to appear for properly-noticed IMEs substantially prejudiced the carrier by denying it the opportunity to evaluate Plaintiff’s health at a time close enough to the accident to permit a comprehensive determination of his alleged injuries.

In granting the Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the carrier, Superior Court Judge Ferris W. Wharton held that Plaintiff’s appearance for IMEs was, in fact, a condition precedent in the policy. Consequently, the carrier was not obligated to provide Plaintiff with PIP benefits.

For further information about the law and facts of this case, please contact Aman K. Sharma, Esq. at 302 352 3124 or asharma@kentmcbride.com.


On March 20, 2017, Bradley Lawrence of K/M’s New York City office, obtained summary judgment in favor of a national retail chain in a premises liability case venued in Nassau County, New York. The plaintiff alleged personal injuries as a result of coming into contact with a metal hook located on a display rack, which was situated in an aisle of the defendant’s store. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant caused the accident by permitting a dangerous condition to exist in the store and by failing to remedy it.

Mr. Lawrence argued that hooks and display racks are open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous. As a result, the defendant did not have a duty to warn the plaintiff of the alleged condition.

Judge Robert A. Bruno, J.S.C., who decided the motion on the papers, sided with Mr. Lawrence and the defendant, holding that the metal hook and rack at issue were open and obvious and not inherently dangerous, as a matter of law. The decision was based on the testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant store manager, as well as on a plethora of factually analogous New York State cases.

For further information about the law and facts of this case, please contact Bradley R. Lawrence, Esq. at (732) 781-1321 or blawrence@kentmcbride.com.


On Friday, February 03, 2017, Francine M. Dimter, Esq. of K/M’s Middletown office successfully argued a motion for dismissal of negligence claims in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County. Two plaintiffs were seeking damages for alleged injuries sustained while riding as passengers in the client’s vehicle. The Honorable Lisa M. Vignuolo, JSC considered oral argument and ruled that no liability could be imposed on Ms. Dimter’s client. Codefendant had collided with KM’s client’s vehicle, and their counsel had attempted to hold KM’s client in the case with an argument that the client did not move with the normal flow of traffic, thus, contributing to the accident. Ms. Dimter resisted this argument, stating that the client’s actions were reasonable and not proximately related to the happening of the accident or plaintiff’s injuries. The Court agreed, entering Summary Judgment in the client’s favor. For further information, please contact Francine at 732-781-1324 or Fdimter@kentmcbride.com


On Tuesday, October 4, 2016, David Malatesta, the managing attorney of the Delaware office, successfully defended a construction company in a breach of contract action in a two day jury trial held in the Superior Court of New Castle County. Plaintiff was seeking damages in excess of $100,000, and alleged that the client had breached its obligations under a contract regarding the installation of shelving units in a new commercial store open to the public. The jury took less than two hours to return its verdict in favor of the K/M client, finding that it did not breach its contract or cause Plaintiff to suffer any damage. For more details about the above, please contact David at dmalatesta@kentmcbride.com


Christopher W. McMullin of K/M’s Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office recently obtained a full defense verdict for a client in a criminal bench trial before the Honorable Karen Yvette Simmons, in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. K/M’s client was charged with a second offense driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), DUI at the highest rate (BAC.16+), DUI involving an accident, and an open container violation. The charges carried a mandatory minimum 90 day term of incarceration and a maximum of 5 years. In addition to mandatory incarceration, the charges also posed potential immigration challenges for K/M’s client.

At trial, police testified that K/M’s client was found semi-conscious behind the wheel of a running vehicle that was located half way into a parking space and half way into the street, impeding a lane of traffic. Police also testified that K/M’s client had numerous open beer cans and an open 30-pack of beer in the passenger seat of the vehicle. Mr. McMullin was able to argue that any evidence of an alleged accident shortly prior to police arrival was inadmissible as hearsay.

Mr. McMullin successfully argued, through witness testimony and use of the Commonwealth’s own witnesses, that there was no evidence that K/M’s client had recently driven or intended to operate the vehicle and was merely drinking beer and listening to music in his vehicle, which was parked around the corner from his house.

Accordingly, Judge Simmons determined the Commonwealth had failed to meet its burden of proof, finding K/M’s client not guilty on all charges.

For further information about the law or facts of the case, please contact Christopher W. McMullin, Esquire at (267)702-1796.


Kent/McBride has moved its offices in Northern New Jersey to One Arlin Park, 1715 Highway 35, Suite 305 in Middletown, New Jersey. This brand new office, located minutes from the Garden State Parkway, will allow the firm to continue its effective and efficient representation in the Northern Counties of NJ, and also gain better access to the Central and Northern shore counties of New Jersey. With offices located in Cherry Hill, Middletown and Pleasantville, NJ, K/M covers the State of New Jersey comprehensively, handling matters in all State, Federal and Administrative tribunals located in the Garden State.


On February 8, 2016, Bradley Lawrence of K/M’s Iselin, New Jersey office, obtained a defense verdict for an automobile insurance company in a bench trial before the Honorable Robert H. Gardner, J.S.C., in the Essex County Superior Court. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that K/M’s client violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by improperly rescinding his insurance policy, along with an entitlement to coverage, as a result of a pedestrian knockdown accident.

The facts of the matter were straightforward and mostly undisputed. The plaintiff went to a used car dealership and spoke with someone about purchasing a policy of automobile insurance. The plaintiff allegedly gave a cash payment to this employee for the initial premium payment. However, the insurance policy documents reflected only banking information, not cash, was provided. Based on the information provided, K/M’s client issued a policy quote and forwarded policy documents to the plaintiff. However, when it attempted to withdraw the initial premium payment from the designated bank, the transaction was denied. K/M’s client immediately voided the policy, ab initio, and sent a rescission notice to the plaintiff. Two weeks after the rescission notice was sent, the plaintiff was involved in an accident. The plaintiff’s vehicle was towed and citations were issued at the scene for failure to maintain automobile insurance.

At trial, the plaintiff argued he provided a cash deposit for the initial premium payment to a person at the used car dealership, who then provided him with an insurance verification form. The plaintiff further argued the banking information on the policy documents was not his and that he never received the rescission notice.

Mr. Lawrence successfully argued, through witness testimony and documentary evidence, that K/M’s client was, indeed, provided with banking information and the designated financial institution denied the initial premium payment transaction. Mr. Lawrence also successfully argued K/M’s client complied with the notice of cancellation requirements of N.J.S. § 17:29C-10 when the rescission notice was mailed. Accordingly, Judge Gardner determined that the plaintiff was unable to meet his burden of proof under the Consumer Fraud Act, and was otherwise unable prove an entitlement to insurance coverage.

For further information about the law and facts of this case, please contact Bradley R. Lawrence, Esq. at (732) 781-1321 or blawrence@kentmcbride.com.


On December 11, 2015, Gary Ahladianakis of K/M’s Iselin, New Jersey office, secured a unanimous jury defense verdict in Passaic County in a matter tried before The Honorable Raymond A. Reddin, J.S.C. involving an underinsured motorist (UIM) claim where the plaintiff was seeking K/M’s client’s entire $500,000 UIM policy limit. The plaintiff was claiming significant injuries stemming from a fender bender that occurred on May 24, 2009, wherein the plaintiff was stopped and was rear-ended by the underinsured vehicle.

Plaintiff claimed injuries to his neck, right shoulder, lumbar spine and right knee, and had multiple surgical procedures including: (1) right shoulder arthroscopy for torn labrum, (2) laminectomy, decompression and lumbar capstone interbody fusion at L2-3 with infuse bone graft, (3) exploration of fusion with biopsy and bone grafting, (4) temporary percutaneous placement of dorsal column stimulator and (5) permanent implantation of dorsal column stimulator. The plaintiff previously settled the underlying action for the tortfeasor’s policy limits of $100,000.00.

Despite reasonable offers by K/M’s client to resolve the matter prior to trial, plaintiff’s counsel refused to accept anything less than the entire UIM policy limit of $500,000.00, despite a non-binding arbitration award being entered for less than the limit. After appeal of this award, the case proceeded to jury trial, with liability conceded, leaving only the damages issue for the jury.

At trial, Mr. Ahladianakis successfully argued that the plaintiff’s L2-3 lumbar fusion was not proximately caused by the subject 2009 accident but, rather, was due to degenerative and preexisting conditions following the plaintiff’s prior two (2) level lumbar fusion at L3-4 and L4-5 that he underwent as a result of a previous accident in 1999. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s right shoulder claim was dismissed on defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, after plaintiff’s counsel, making a strategic decision to not play the videotaped trial deposition previously taken of the plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgeon. This decision was occasioned by aggressive and successful cross-examination by Mr. Ahladianakis that would have severely hampered plaintiff’s claim as to the lower back injury.

The plaintiff was also seeking $62,885.61 in unpaid medical bills as the plaintiff’s treatment and surgical procedures following the subject accident exhausted the $250,000 Personal Injury Protection (PIP) limits.

After only 45 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous 8-0 verdict (the alternate jurors also deliberated) finding that:

  1. the plaintiff did not prove that he sustained a permanent injury to his lower back as a result of the May 24, 2009 accident; and
  2. the plaintiff did not incur unpaid medical bills for necessary medical treatment of any injuries caused by the May 24, 2009 accident.

For further information about the law and additional facts of this case, please contact Gary Ahladianakis, Esq. at (732) 781-1310 or gahladiakis@kentmcbride.com.


On October 23, 2015, Bradley Lawrence of K/M’s Iselin, New Jersey office, obtained a defense verdict in a jury trial held before the Honorable John J. Langan, Jr., in the Bergen County Superior Court. Mr. Lawrence defended a phantom vehicle pursuant to a claim for uninsured motorist benefits made by the plaintiff.

The accident from which the plaintiff claimed permanent, personal injuries involved three vehicles. The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that was unexpectedly cut off by an unidentified phantom vehicle. The operator of the plaintiff’s vehicle slammed on the brakes and was immediately rear ended by a third vehicle.

Mr. Lawrence argued that the alleged phantom vehicle was not the proximate cause of the accident, and that the plaintiff did not prove a permanent injury sufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s burden of proof in overcoming the New Jersey Verbal Threshold.

After hearing testimony from the plaintiff, defendants and medical experts, the jury returned a verdict of “no cause,” determining that the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent injury as a result of the accident. The jury also apportioned the majority of liability on the defendant that struck the plaintiff’s vehicle in the rear.

For further information about the law and facts of this case, please contact Bradley R. Lawrence, Esq. at (732) 781-1321 or blawrence@kentmcbride.com.


Jay Branderbit and Joshua Ferguson presented a Seminar entitled RELEVANT LEGAL ISSUES AND PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR MOTOR VEHICLE LITIGATION IN PENNSYLVANIA to one of K/M’s Regional Insurance carrier clients on October 15, 2015. The presentation covered not only recent developments in motor vehicle insurance litigation, but also a general overview of issues arising in litigation concerning first party medical payments, UM/UIM and limited tort matters. For further information about the presentation, please contact Jay or Josh at Jbranderbit@kentmcbride.com or Jferguson@kentmcbride.com


Joshua Ferguson and Jay Branderbit presented a seminar entitled SLIP AND FALL CLAIMS: PREVENTING, ASSESSING AND HANDLING CLAIMS IN PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY to one of the firm’s general liability insurance carrier clients in Scottsdale, Arizona on October 14, 2015. The presentation centered on evaluation and defense of claims against snow/ice removal professionals and covered not only issues concerning legal standards to be applied in such cases, but also evaluation of such claims and risk management and claim prevention strategies. For further information about the presentation, please contact Josh or Jay at Jferguson@kentmcbride.com or Jbranderbit@kentmcbride.com


On October 2, 2015 Stephen McHugh received a defense verdict in a jury trial held before the Honorable Louis R. Meloni in the Camden County Superior Court. Mr. McHugh successfully defended a regional business that specializes in preparing high school students for the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), college entrance exams, and in tutoring students. Plaintiff claimed she was wrongfully discharged from her job due to her national heritage, in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD).

Plaintiff began working in the business office in October 2012 as an “at will” employee. She claimed that her job was terminated during a private meeting with her supervisor who made discriminatory comments. Plaintiff left the office after the meeting and returned the next day to get her last pay check. She claimed that the same supervisor made discriminatory comments in front of witnesses when she was waiting for her pay check.

The defendant hired another employee in the same office for a different job than plaintiff’s. Plaintiff claimed that the new hire was not a member of her protected class and was meant to replace her as an elaborate pretext for discrimination.

Plaintiff sued both the business and its owner for violating the NJLAD, claiming that the business was the corporate alter ego of its owner. The plaintiff’s complaint sought compensatory damages for lost earnings and emotional pain and suffering, punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

The defendant argued that plaintiff was not fired but left the job voluntarily. The defendant also argued that none of its actions were motivated by discrimination.

The claim against the business owner was dismissed prior to trial when Judge Meloni granted summary judgment in his favor , finding that there was not adequate proof that the business was its owner’s alter ego. At trial, the jury found that the plaintiff was fired from her job but that her firing was not motivated by discrimination and a verdict was entered in favor of the defendant.

For further information about the case please contact Steve McHugh at smchugh@kentmcbride.com

K/M presents a State Bar Young Lawyers Symposium

Gary Ahladianakis, of our Iselin office, will be speaking at the Young Lawyers Symposium on Saturday, October 3rd, 2015 at the Hilton in Parsippany, New Jersey. The Symposium is being co-sponsored by the Young Lawyers Division and the Diversity Committee of the New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA).

Gary will be speaking at the session entitled “The Associate-How to Get Noticed When You’re a Small Fish in a Big Pond,” which will provide tips as to how an associate can market themselves both internally within the firm (i.e., balancing high-quality work with being ‘go to’ associate) and externally (i.e., networking, bar leadership, etc.) to be able to stand tall and above the crowded field. Gary has been practicing law for over ten (10) years and is currently serving his second term on the Executive Committee of the Young Lawyers Division of the NJSBA.

Click here to view flyer.

K/M Opens Pleasantville, NJ office

Kent/McBride has opened an office in Pleasantville, New Jersey. This is the firm’s third office in the State of New Jersey. The new location will be led by Thomas McCormick. Mr. McCormick focuses his practice primarily on gaming and employment law. This new location allows Mr. McCormick to stay connected with his clients by offering them a location closer to the gaming industry in New Jersey. Mr. McCormick will be joined by new hires Lori Klinger and Robert Stacchini in that office, who focus their practice on K/M’s civil litigation practice.

K/M presents New Associates

Kent/McBride is proud to Announce the Hiring of Attorneys, Sean Smith (Cherry Hill, New Jersey) , Lori Klinger (Pleasantville, New Jersey) , Robert Stacchini (Pleasantville, New Jersey), Courtney Mazzio (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), Debbie Fascia (Cherry Hill, New Jersey and Lance Forbes (Cherry Hill and Iselin, New Jersey). Please see the “Attorneys” section of our website for a more detailed look at these outstanding new additions to the K/M family.

K/M Wins Summary Judgment in PA Falldown Case

K/M’s attorneys successfully obtained summary judgment for its client, a regional supermarket chain, in a case involving a claimed falldown alleged to have taken place as a result of a defective rug in an entryway of one of the client’s stores in Delaware County, PA. Plaintiff, who sustained a pelvic fracture in the fall, alleged the rug placed in the entryway was in a defective condition and caused her to fall. She was hospitalized for a week, required surgery to repair the fracture, and was then placed in a rehabilitation facility for a period of several weeks before being discharged to her home.

Through discovery, K/M was able to establish there was no evidence of anything being intrinsically wrong with the rug at the time of the fall, and, there was no evidence of any transient defect having to do with the rug. The Honorable Charles Burr of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas entered summary judgment on behalf of the firm’s client.

For further information about this case, please contact Jay Branderbit at Jbranderbit@kentmcbride.com

K/M Wins Summary Judgment in NY Snow Removal Case

Christopher Devanny of K/M’s New York Office recently won a Motion for Summary Judgment in a Kings County Supreme Court case involving injuries sustained from a slip and fall on ice located on a sidewalk abutting a residential building. The decision was issued by Justice Gloria M. Dabiri.

Plaintiff sued the property owner for allegedly failing to maintain the premises. The property owner filed a third party action against K/M’s client, the snow removal contractor. The property owner sought common law and contractual indemnification/contribution. The plaintiff later amended the complaint to add the contractor as a direct defendant.

As a general rule, a limited contractual obligation to provide snow removal services does not render a snow removal contractor liable in tort for the personal injuries sustained by third parties. However, the New York Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to this rule: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his or her duties, launches a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties; or (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced another party’s duties to maintain the subject premises safely. Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors Inc. 98 NY2d 136, 140 (2002).

The Court determined that K/M’s client made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was not a party to its snow removal contract, and, therefore was not owed a duty of care by K/M’s client.

The Court further held that the plaintiff and the property owner failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the applicability of an exception to the general rule. With regard to the first exception, it was undisputed that contractor was last at the premises four days before the plaintiff’s fall. The Court determined that by merely plowing the snow the contractor could not be said to have created or exacerbated a dangerous condition. Moreover, pursuant to the contract, the contractor was not obligated to apply salt or sand, unless specifically directed to do so by the owner. The court concluded that there was no evidence that the contractor was negligent in performing snow removal services on the day of the plaintiff’s fall.

The Court also determined that there was no evidence that the plaintiff relied to his detriment on the snow removal contractor’s performance of its duties. The court reasoned that the plaintiff testified that he was unaware that the property owner had retained an outside company to perform snow removal. Moreover, plaintiff testified that he was walking on the sidewalk, an area of the property for which the property owner, and not the contractor was responsible for. Thus, the plaintiff’s reliance, if any, would have been on the property owner.

Finally, the testimony of the parties and the contractor demonstrated that the duty of the property owner to maintain the premises was not displaced. The contract between the property owner and the snow removal contractor provided that the contractor was only to remove snow from the driveways and parking lot, and that pedestrian walkways were “specifically excluded.” Moreover, the owner was required to monitor and inspect the premises after the contractor completed its job.

For further information about this case, please contact Christopher Devanny at cdevanny@kentmcbride.com.

K/M Defeats Late Appeal in NJ Arbitration

Plaintiff, Lluydmila Asabina, a New York resident, and a New Jersey resident, were involved in a collision on the slopes at a ski resort in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff initially sued defendant in New York, but on defendant’s motion her complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. She then sued K/M’s client in New Jersey.

Following the completion of discovery, the parties participated in mandatory non-binding arbitration. The arbitrator found the defendant 85% liable for the accident. However, the arbitrator awarded the plaintiff no damages, finding that her claim was barred by Pennsylvania’s Skier’s Responsibility Act (the Ski Act), 42 Pa.C.S. Section 7102c. Plaintiff failed to file a timely trial de novo within the thirty day time limit set by Rule 4:21A-6(b). Instead she sought several adjournments of the summary judgment motion filed a few days before the arbitration.

Defendant filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award, and plaintiff filed a cross-motion to either file her de novo demand four months out of time, or to withdraw the case from arbitration nunc pro tunc. She argued that the case involved complex legal issues, warranting the relief she sought. Plaintiff also argued that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to render an award under New Jersey’s Constitution. The Trial Court found there were no complex issues or other extraordinary circumstances justifying the late filing. The Trial Court also declined to entertain the plaintiff’s constitution argument because the plaintiff failed to serve notice of the Attorney General. The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court’s decision based on the reasons set forth therein. The Court further held that even if it were to consider the constitutional argument, it was clearly without merit.

Finally, the Court correctly inferred that the plaintiff deliberately avoided suing K/M’s client in Pennsylvania because that state’s law is highly unfavorable to skiers. The court determined that Pennsylvania law would have applied. Unlike New Jersey law, Pennsylvania provides strict immunity to ski resorts against lawsuits by skiers injured on the ski slopes. Thus, the Court opined that even if the Trial Court had allowed the plaintiff to file a de novo demand four months late, the case would properly have been dismissed on summary judgment.

For further information about this case, please contact Christopher Devanny at cdevanny@kentmcbride.com.


Joshua Ferguson, a partner in K/M’s Philadelphia office, was recently the keynote speaker at a series of Accredited Snow Contractors Association (“ASCA”) sponsored events. Given his experience defending snow contractors and landscapers, Josh was asked to speak on behalf of the ASCA to various contractors and insurance industry representatives at events in Chicago, Illinois, Westchester, New York; and Trenton, New Jersey. Josh has also been working directly with the ASCA in preparing curricula for Continuing Education Classes and proposed Tort Reform Legislation for the snow industry. For more details about the above, please contact Josh at jferguson@kentmcbride.com.

Jay Branderbit, a partner in K/M’s Philadelphia office, recently was a copresenter at the April 29, 2015 CLM Alliance (South Jersey chapter) Seminar, Litigating Employment Practices Liability Claims. Jay’s presentation, which was focused on ADA and FMLA claims, was given to an audience of insurance and self-insured claims professionals and attorneys. For more details about the above, please contact Jay at jbranderbit@kentmcbride.com.

Kevin Dronson and Stephen McHugh, partners in K/M’s Cherry Hill office, presented a seminar on New Jersey Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) for a client of the firm. For more details or to discuss having a member of the firm speak to your organization, please contact Kevin at Kdronson@kentmcbride.com or Steve at Smchugh@kentmcbride.com.

Denis McBride and Stephen McHugh, partners in the Cherry Hill office presented a seminar on New Jersey UM/UIM law for a client of the firm. For more details or to discuss having a member of the firm speak to your organization, please contact Denis at Dmcbride@kentmcbride.com or Steve at Smchugh@kentmcbride.com.

Kevin Hoffman, a partner in the Iselin office, recently took part in a Mock Asbestos Trial Presentation. Mr. Hoffman worked with colleagues from other firms to walk claims adjusters through an asbestos trial in order to assist them in better understanding the trial process and how they might integrate that understanding into more effective claims handling prior to trial. For more details about this presentation, please contact Kevin at khoffman@kentmcbride.com.

News Archive