|University ||Indiana University of Pennsylvania, B.A., magna cum laude, 1990; University of California, M.A., Legal History, 1998; Princeton University, Completed Ph.D. Coursework, Legal History, 1999|
|Law School||Duquesne University School of Law, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, J.D., 1993 Duquesne Law Review, Senior Editor|
|Admitted||1994, Pennsylvania; U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit; U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania; U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania; U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania|
Associations & Memberships
•Bar Association for the Third Federal Circuit
•Pennsylvania Bar Association
•Philadelphia Bar Association
John is an experienced appellate attorney who serves as chair of the firm's Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group. He has litigated more than 300 appeals in state and federal appellate courts. His diverse practice includes cases involving professional malpractice, civil rights claims, product liability, toxic torts, construction accidents, employment claims and premises liability. In addition to litigating cases in the appellate courts, he is actively engaged in developing and implementing trial and appellate strategy, prosecuting and defending pre-trial, trial and post-trial motions, and acting as appellate counsel on trial teams in high-exposure cases.
In addition to his practice, John is actively involved in bar association activities. He regularly speaks on appellate topics, serves as co-chair of the amicus curiae committee of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute, and submits amicus briefs to appellate courts on behalf of various organizations. He also formerly served on the Board of Governors of the Bar Association of the Third Federal Circuit.
John has an AV Preeminent (5.0/5.0) rating by Lexis Nexis Martindale-Hubbell, the highest rating for professional competence. Every year since 2008, John has been recognized by Law & Politics/Philadelphia Magazine as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer in the area of appellate practice, a distinction applied to five percent of Pennsylvania attorneys based on a peer selection and evaluation process.
Along with former Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Patrick Tamilia, John was commissioned by the Superior Court in 1995 to draft a comprehensive history of the Court to commemorate its Centennial Anniversary. The book, entitled Keystone of Justice: The Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1895-1995, was published by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 2000 and is one of the nation's leading studies of a state appellate court.
John is regularly called upon by the media to provide insight and commentary on cases in which he is involved, as well as other significant matters in both the state and federal appeals courts. To view John's most recent commentary in the last year, scroll down to the Media Commentary section below.
•What Can We Learn from Nancy Raynor?, Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel, June 2015
•Winning Your Case on Appeal, Pennsylvania Defense Institute, 45th Annual Conference, July 17-19, 2013
•Winning (or Not Losing) Your Case on Appeal, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, May 2010
•Appellate Mediation in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, December 2009
Past Employment Positions
•Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Hon. Patrick R. Tamilia, Law Clerk, 1994 -1997
•U.S. Marines, 1986 - 1990
•“ A New Product Liability Paradigm, ” Defense Digest, Vol. 21, No. 1, March 2015
• Protecting Their Own; The Power Of Administrative Agencies To Enforce Regulations Through Litigation, Defense Digest, May 2003
• The Legal Doctrines Of Waiver And Estoppel May Not Be Used To Expand The Scope Of An Insurance Policy To Cover Excluded Risks, Defense Digest, September 2002
• Defining 'Beneficiary' In A Wrongful Death Action Under The Pennsylvania Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association Act, Defense Digest, August 2001
• Pennsylvania Appellate News, Defense Digest, 2001-2008
•Keystone of Justice: A History of the Pennsylvania Superior Court; 1895-1995, co-author with Hon. P. Tamilia, Superior Court of Pa., Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, January 2000
• Note, Freedom of the Press and the Right to a Fair Trial in Pennsylvania, 30 Duq.L.Rev. 760, 1992
Honors & Awards
• AV Preeminent by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell
•Pennsylvania Super Lawyer, 2008-2015
• Rule Changes Clear Up Legal Gray Area in Post-Trial Motions, Legal Intelligencer, July 14, 2015
• Raising Pa. Supreme Court Output Easier Said Than Done?, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, March 31, 2015
• Police Owe No Duty to Unknown Passengers in Fleeing Car, The Legal Intelligencer, January 5, 2014
• Pennsylvania Cases To Watch In 2015, Law360, January 2, 2015
• En Banc Superior Court Tosses $14.5M Asbestos Verdict, The Legal Intelligencer, December 29, 2014
• Pa. En Banc Panel Boots $14.5M Asbestos Verdict, Law360, December 24, 2014
• Collateral Order Appeals on the Rise in Pennsylvania, The Legal Intelligencer, (Dec. 12, 2014)
• Pa. Supreme Court Won't Take up Appeal of 18 Asbestos Cases, The Legal Intelligencer (Dec. 8, 2014)
• With Vacancies Looming, High Court Increases Productivity, The Legal Intelligencer (Dec. 2, 2014)
• Justices to Eye Philadelphia Asbestos Consolidation Procedure, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, (Nov. 18, 2014)
• Ford Appeal Could Aid Defendants In Philly Asbestos Cases, Law360, (Nov. 13, 2014)
• Wolf's Win Sets Stage For Pa. Supreme Court Shakeup, Law360, (Nov. 5, 2014)
•“Pa. Porn Scandal Ups Pressure For Judicial Merit Selection,” Law360 (October 21, 2014)
•“$20M Knee Injury Dispute Could Rejigger Pa. Tort Law,” Law360 (October 6, 2014)
•“Parties Spar Over Tossed $14.5 Mil. Asbestos Verdict,” The Legal Intelligencer (August 12, 2014)
•“After Quiet First Half, 4 PA High Court Cases To Watch,” Law360, July 16, 2014
•“Pa. Ruling Limits Asbestos Claims In Construction Suits,” Law360, July 2, 2014
•“Attorneys Shocked by Senate Proposal to Slash Judiciary,” The Legal Intelligencer, June 5, 2014
• Dive into PSU Sanctions Shows Breadth of Judicial Discretion, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, April 28, 2014
•“PA. Supreme Court Reaffirms Statutory Employer Doctrine,” The Legal Intelligencer, March 31, 2014
•“Pa. Appeals Court Won't Reconsider Asbestos Suits' Transfer,” Law360, March 31, 2014
•“Pa. High Court Keeps Tort Immunity For General Contractors,” Law360, March 27, 2014
•“Tardy Statement of Errors Causes Waiver of Appeal,” The Legal Intelligencer, March 17, 2014
•“Pa. Court Says Amusement Park Death Suit Belongs in NJ,” Law360, March 12, 2014
•“Are Appeals Courts Showing More Mercy for Procedural Errors,” The Legal Intelligencer, February 10, 2014
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds That an Insurer Defending Under a Reservation of Rights Must Reimburse an Insured for an Unconsented-To Settlement So Long as the Settled Claim Is Covered and the Settlement Is Fair and Reasonable
Law Alerts • July 23, 2015
By R. Bruce Morrison and John J. HareThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled in a 3-2 decision that an insurer defending under a reservation of rights must reimburse an insured for a tort settlement paid by the insured, despite the insurer'..., This newsletter is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to...
A New Product Liability Paradigm
Defense Digest Article • March 1, 2015
Key Points:Azzarello overruled.Third Restatement rejected.Pennsylvania product liability law destined for years of uncertainty. After years of waiting, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finally decided in November..., Defense Digest, Vol. 21, No. 1, March 2015Defense Digest is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal...
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decides to Hear Appeal in Patton v. Worthington Construction
Law Alerts • May 23, 2013
In an appeal handled by John J. Hare and Kimberly Boyer-Cohen of Marshall Dennehey's appellate practice group, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear a general contractor's appeal in the case of Patton v. Worthington Construction...
Asbestos Litigation Alert: Bill Aimed at Preventing Claimants Double-Dipping Takes Step Forward
Law Alerts • May 6, 2013
John Hare, Chairman of the Post-Trial and Appellate Advocacy Practice Group at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, recently testified before the Pennsylvania Legislature in support of a bill he co-drafted that seeks transparency in the...
Amendments to Medicare Lien Legislation
Law Alerts • January 16, 2013
Anyone who has settled liability or workers' compensation claims in the past couple of years knows how difficult it can be to understand and comply with the Medicare secondary payer rules regarding the reimbursement of liens, as set forth in...
New Third Circuit Decision Limiting Taxable Costs for E-Discovery in Federal Court
Law Alerts • May 27, 2012
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has handed down an important decision clarifying-and sharply limiting-the costs for electronic discovery that may be taxed against a losing party. In Race Tires America, Inc. et al., v. Hoosier Racing..., Special Case Law Alert - May 27, 2012
Communications between counsel and trial expert are not discoverable and are shielded from disclosure by the work-product privilege.
Law Alerts • January 1, 2012
This matter involves the discoverability of communications between counsel and a trial expert regarding the manner in which the expert should frame his or her opinions or report. In September 2010, the Superior Court issued a precedential decision..., Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2012
Teresa Ficken Sachs Joins Marshall Dennehey to Assume Leadership Role in Appellate Advocacy Practice Group
January 14, 2015
Well-known appellate attorney Teresa (Terry) Ficken Sachs has joined Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin as a Shareholder and Vice-Chair of the firm's Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group. In this capacity, she will work closely with practice group chair, John J. Hare, in...
Marshall Denneheys Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group Achieves Unanimous PA Supreme Court Decision in Patton v. Worthington
March 28, 2014
Oral arguments presented before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by John J. Hare, shareholder and chair of Marshall Dennehey's Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group, have led to a unanimous decision by the Court to reinstate a long-standing statutory employer defense for general...
John J. Hare Presents Oral Arguments Before PA Supreme Court in UIM Case
May 17, 2013
John J. Hare, Shareholder and Chair of the Appellate Advocacy and Post Trial Practice Group, presented oral arguments earlier this month in Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Insurance in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. This is the second time that Vanderhoff has been considered by the Supreme Court. R....
John J. Hare Testifies Before Pennsylvania Legislature in Support of Asbestos Litigation Bill He Co-Drafted
May 16, 2013
John Hare, Chairman of the Post-Trial and Appellate Advocacy Practice Group at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, testified in April before the Pennsylvania Legislature in support of a bill he co-drafted that seeks transparency in the process by which claimants seek compensation from...
Pennsylvania Defense Institute Annual Conference
Conference • Jul 18, 2013
The Pennsylvania Defense Institute is hosting its 45th annual conference on July 17-19 at the Omni Bedford Springs Resort. The annual conference is an excellent opportunity to mix business with pleasure while obtaining continuing education credits....
|Reported Cases||Significant Representative Matters: By a vote of 6-0, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed a judgment as a matter of law for John's clients, a Pennsylvania police department and a police officer, and held that police owe neither a statutory nor a common law duty to unknown passengers in fleeing vehicles. The plaintiff had been killed during a high speed pursuit. The Pennsylvania Fraternal Order of Police, The Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association, the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Municipal League, and the Pennsylvania Association of Boroughs joined together as amici curiae to support John's position in the Supreme Court. Sellers v. Township of Abington et al., 2014 Pa. Lexis. 3463 (December 29, 2014). The Pennsylvania Superior Court, sitting en banc, vacated a $14.5 million verdict and remanded for a new trial based upon the erroneous admission of expert testimony and prejudicial statements by opposing counsel. Nelson v. American Standard, et al., 2014 Pa. Super. 286 (Pa. Super., December 23, 2014)(en banc). By a vote of 7-0, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and the trial court and ruled that John's client, a general contractor, was immune from suit under Pennsylvania's statutory employer doctrine. The ruling nullified a large verdict against the general contractor. Twenty-one construction and insurance industry groups joined together as amici to support John's appeal to the Supreme Court. Patton v. Worthington Associates, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 788 (March 26, 2014). The Pennsylvania Superior Court dismissed a highly-publicized death case filed against John's client in Pennsylvania based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens under Pennsylvania's long-arm statute, 42 Pa.C.S. 5322(e). Jones v. Morey's Pier Inc., No. 2990 EDA 2012 (March 10, 2014); The Pennsylvania Superior Court ordered the transfer of 18 asbestos cases out of Philadelphia to a more appropriate venue based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Stettler v. Allied Signal et al., 795 EDA 2012 (Pa. Super., January 21, 2014); In its second ruling in the case in two years, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Superior Court's reversal of a trial court finding that an insurer was not prejudiced by the insured's failure to report a phantom vehicle within the 30-day time limit set forth in the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1702. The Supreme Court held that an insured reasonably can be expected to alert the insurer of the phantom vehicle within a month's time and, while an insurer cannot deny coverage absent prejudice cause by late notice, showing such prejudice does not require proof of what the insurer would have found had timely notice been provided. Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Insurance Co., 2013 Pa. Lexis 2581 (Pa. 2013). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc and deciding an issue of first impression, held that a school district and its assistant principal were properly granted summary judgment because students' allegations of bullying against other students did not establish a special relationship or state-created danger that must exist before a constitutional duty to protect arose under Fourteenth Amendment . Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2013). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that, even if medical treatment provided to a prisoner constitutes medical malpractice, it does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution unless it results from deliberate indifference to the prisoner's rights. Positano v. Wetzel, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14020 (3d Cir. 2013). In a case in which John filed an amicus curiae brief, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Pennsylvania Superior Court and held that a physician has no duty to warn and advise third-party non-patients of a patient's communicable disease. Seebold v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 57 A.3d 1232 (Pa. 2013). The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court's transfer of venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the first such decision by a Pennsylvania appellate court in nine years. Stoner v. Penn Kleen, 2012 Pa. Super. 218, 2012 Pa.Super. LEXIS 2932 (Pa. Super. 2012). In a case of first impression, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a putative class action against John's client, a national manufacturer of automobile anti-theft systems, and held that the client was not liable under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, which permits a broad array of damages for violations of any federal or state consumer protection law, because its warranty did not violate any clearly established right under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. McGarvey v. Penske Auto Group, Inc., et al., 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 13450 (July 2, 2012). In the first Pennsylvania decision addressing the recoverability of attorneys' fees on a jury's award of future medical expenses under the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, the Court held that such fees are paid out of, not in addition to, the award of future medical expenses, after reduction to present value. This ruling substantially reduced the value of a claim against John's client. Sayler v. Skutches, 2012 PA Super 23, 2012 Pa. Super. LEXIS 25 (Pa. Super., February 6, 2012). The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court vacated a large judgment against John's client, a township, and remanded for the entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict, on the basis that the trial evidence failed to demonstrate that the township was responsible for the decedent's death. Rahman v. Falls Township, 2012 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 126 (Pa.Cmwlth., January 6, 2012). The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and awarded a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, vacating a large verdict against John's client, a mutual insurance company, on the basis that the insurer's conduct in handling a fire damage claim did not constitute bad faith as a matter of law. Edkin v. Brethren Mutual Insurance Co., 1331 MDA 2009 (Pa. Super., February 4, 2011). The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated an adverse jury verdict and remanded for a new trial in favor of John's client, one of the world's leading construction firms, in its claim for contractual indemnity. Skanska USA Buildings, Inc. v. Gory Mechanical Contractors, 345 EDA 2010 (Pa. Super., January 19, 2011). In a decision reconciling two conflicting lines of cases, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court ruling that John's client, an insurer, had a duty to defend a lawsuit claiming that the intoxicated insured assaulted and attempted to kill the plaintiff before taking his own life. The central issue in the case was whether and to what extent allegations of intoxication can convert otherwise intentional conduct into an accident for purposes of securing insurance coverage. Addressing tension in the existing case law, the Court reasoned in its published decision that Pennsylvania public policy forbids the extension of insurance coverage to obviously intentional conduct and that allegations of intoxication can create a duty to defend only when the allegations indicate that the insured was so intoxicated that he lacked conscious awareness of his actions or lacked the ability to form intent. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co v. The Estate of Thomas Mehlman, 589 F.3d 105 (3d Cir., 2009). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and upheld the dismissal of all claims against John's client, a law firm, on the basis that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Seawright v. Greenberg, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9248 (3d Cir. 2007). The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded for the re-entry of judgment in favor of John's client, a nonprofit corporation that had entered into an agreement to buy real estate, on the basis that the trial court had erroneously stricken the judgment. Crystal Lake Camps v. Alford, 923 A.2d 482 (Pa. Super. 2007). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims against John's clients, attorneys and their law firm, on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to prove the necessary element of causation. My Le Duong v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27617 (3d Cir. 2006). The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a large verdict against John's client and remanded for a new trial on the basis that the jury should have been allowed to consider whether the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Urbach v. Kentile, Inc., et al., 915 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 1351 (Pa. 2007). In the first comprehensive appellate decision interpreting Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3-1042.6, Pennsylvania's tort reform measure intended to increase the threshold of merit for professional liability actions, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded for the entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of John's client, a physician, based upon the plaintiff's failure to file a certificate of merit in support of his medical malpractice claim. O'Hara v. Randall, 879 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. 2005). The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court, which entered judgment for John's client, that the City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Phillies owed no duty to a spectator at a baseball game who was partially blinded when hit by a foul ball. Pakett v. The City of Philadelphia et al, 871 A.2d 304 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to retry her claims against John's client, a hospital. Stalsitz v. Allentown Hospital, 814 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2004). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and dismissed the plaintiff's civil rights claims on the basis that John's clients, county officials, were entitled to absolute immunity from liability for actions taken in their official capacities. Laverdure v. County of Montgomery, 324 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2003). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the judgment of the federal district court and ruled that an ordinance passed by John's client, a Pennsylvania municipality, did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Philadelphia Owners Association v. City of Philadelphia et al, 57 Fed. Appx. 961 (3d Cir. 2003). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed two lower courts and awarded a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, erasing a substantial judgment against John's client, a professional corporation, on the basis that the plaintiff's res ipsa loquitur theory of liability was invalid as a matter of law. Toogood v. Rogal, 824 A.2d 1140 (Pa. 2003). In the first appellate decision interpreting and applying Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006(a.1), Pennsylvania's tort reform measure involving venue, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court and held that the plaintiff's medical malpractice action against John's client, a physician, must be transferred out of Philadelphia County. Connor v. Crozer Keystone Health Sys., 832 A.2d 1112 (Pa. Super. 2003). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's product liability claims against John's client, a manufacturer of scaffolding equipment, after a jury found that the manufacturer was not responsible for the construction accident that injured the plaintiff. Johnson v. Vanguard Manufacturing, 34 Fed. Appx. 858 (3d Cir. 2002). The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and awarded a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, erasing a substantial judgment against John's client, a hospital, on the basis that, although the plaintiff had adduced some evidence to support her claims, the evidence was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence. Van Zandt v. Holy Redeemer Hospital, 806 A.2d 809 (Pa. 2002).|
Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com
A New Product Liability Paradigm
John J. Hare,Keith D. Heinold, March 10, 2015
After years of waiting, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finally decided in November 2014 what the product liability law in Pennsylvania would look like. In Tincher v. Omega Flex, the issue was straightforward —would Pennsylvania adopt the Third Restatement of Torts as it relates to product...
View Ratings & Reviews
|Profile Visibility |
|#105 in weekly profile views out of 17,465 lawyers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania|
|#8,591 in weekly profile views out of 1,722,821 total lawyers Overall|