Shane Haselbarth: Lawyer with Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C.

Shane Haselbarth

Shane Haselbarth is an association with Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin in the firm's Casualty Department. He focuses his practice on the defense of premises liability, products liability and municipal liability.
Phone(215) 575-2639

Peer Rating

Client Rating

Printer Friendly VersionEmail this PageDownload to My Outlook ContactsAdd lawyer to My FavoritesCompare this lawyer to other lawyers in your favorites

Experience & Credentials

Practice Areas

  • Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice
  • Product Liability
  • Premises Liability
  • Municipal Liability
  • Appellate Litigation
  • Post-Trial Litigation
University Franciscan University of Steubenville, B.A., magna cum laude, 2004
Law SchoolAve Maria School of Law, Ann Arbor, Michigan, J.D., summa cum laude, 2007
Admitted2007, New Jersey; 2007, Pennsylvania; U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit; U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania; U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit; 2014, Florida

Associations & Memberships

•Pennsylvania Bar Association
•Philadelphia Bar Association


Shane is a member of the firm's Post-Trial and Appellate Advocacy Practice Group. In this role, he handles all aspects of briefing and argument in federal and state appellate courts, and is also routinely tasked with assisting trial teams with the preparation and presentation of briefing and argument in support of pre-trial motions and post-trial motions. The appellate team at Marshall Dennehey also provides critical support to attorneys at trial to ensure that pitfalls are avoided and all appellate issues are preserved for clients. Serving as appellate lead counsel and trial-level support counsel allows Shane to handle cases of all varieties, including civil rights and municipal liability, negligence, construction accidents, professional malpractice, products liability, toxic torts, and class actions.

Prior to joining the firm, Shane served as a law clerk for one year for the Honorable D. Brooks Smith, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This followed a two-year clerkship for the Honorable William J. Zloch, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In both chambers, Shane was responsible for managing the portion of the judges' docket assigned to him, drafting opinions and orders, and preparing the judges for argument and trial.

Shane is admitted to practice in all state courts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Florida, as well as the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Published Works

•“The Phantom Vehicle: Prejudice in Delayed UM Claim Not Presumed, But Certainly Demonstrable,” Defense Digest, Vol. 20, No. 1, March 2014

Honors & Awards

•Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star, 2015

Year Joined Organization



The discovery rule applies to the seriousness of injuries, not merely the injuries themselves.
Law Alerts • April 1, 2015

Mrs. Varner-Mort was in a car accident in early May of 2009 and sought treatment within days. She was diagnosed with back sprain with paresthesia of a lower extremity, but she did not file suit until more than two years later, in late June of 2011...., Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2015Case Law Alerts 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...

It is not bad faith to reject a UM arbitration award and seek trial de novo in reliance on an unpublished case and independently under policy language.
Law Alerts • April 1, 2015

After the plaintiff was struck by an uninsured motorist, he filed a UM claim against his auto insurer and that of his employer, which proceeded to arbitration. The insurers were ordered to split equally an award in the plaintiff's favor. The..., Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2015Case Law Alerts 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...

Youth lacrosse body check not enough to impose tort liability.
Law Alerts • January 6, 2015

The plaintiff, a 12-year-old lacrosse player, was in possession of the ball with 20 seconds left on the clock and his team up by one. The defendant, an 11-year-old player, tore across the field and blindsided the plaintiff in a disallowed so-called..., Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2015

The inscrutable wisdom of Solomon: Pennsylvania splits the baby by rejecting the Third Restatement of Torts (Products Liability), but overrules Azzarello.
Law Alerts • January 6, 2015

A lightning strike caused a puncture in a natural gas line in a building and ignited the gas. The building's owners sued the manufacturer of the pipe and won at trial on a strict product liability theory. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme..., Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2015

Estate has standing to sue employer's insurer, but suit is barred based on workers' compensation exclusion and election of remedies.
Law Alerts • January 6, 2015

The decedent was killed on the job, and his Estate entered into a workers' compensation settlement with Zenith, the employer's workers' compensation and employer liability insurer. The settlement contained a release by which the..., Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2015

Corporation chartered by sovereign Indian tribe is not entitled to sovereign immunity from ordinary civil action.
Law Alerts • January 6, 2015

The Seneca Nation, a federally recognized sovereign tribe, chartered corporations under its own laws and were wholly owned by the Nation. The plaintiff entered into a contract with one such corporation to construct a golf course. Relations soured,..., Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2015

A physician cannot insulate himself from liability for negligence by relying on a subsequent treating physician's testimony that adequate care by the defendant physician would not have altered the subsequent care.
Law Alerts • October 1, 2014

The Florida Supreme Court resolved a split among the District Courts of Appeal on an issue of causation in medical malpractice cases. The plaintiff was treated by a series of physicians. Doctor 2 testified in discovery that he would not have changed..., Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2014

Jury instruction on the duty to use the special degree of skill and care possessed by a defendant is inapplicable to a product liability case.
Law Alerts • October 1, 2014

The plaintiff was injured by a Volvo-with a 1987 manual transmission-when it lurched forward as it was started while in-gear. The theory of liability was negligence and design defect for failure to include an ignition interlock that..., Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2014

Arbitration provision in a contract cannot be set aside on the basis of procedural unconscionability alone. It must be further unconscionable in its substantive terms.
Law Alerts • October 1, 2014

The plaintiff was the successful bidder for real property at an auction conducted by the defendant. When the gavel dropped, the plaintiff signed a purchase order containing a broad arbitration clause. He later filed suit, claiming that the defendant..., Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2014

New York Court of Appeals holds that a medical corporation is not liable for the unauthorized disclosure of private health information by a non-physician.
Law Alerts • April 1, 2014

A nurse recognized a patient as the boyfriend of a family member. The nurse then accessed the patient's private health information contained in medical records and passed this information to the family member. The patient sued the clinic and..., Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2014

Reported CasesSignificant Representative Matters: In this tortious interference/civil conspiracy matter, the trial court dismissed the case for failure of the plaintiff to timely serve original process.Shane defended against the appeal by plaintiff, which argued that plaintiff's good faith efforts and mere mistake easily satisfied Pennsylvania's service rules. The Superior Court unanimously decided against plaintiff, and affirmed the dismissal of the case for failure to make timely service. Smash PA, Inc. v. Lehigh Valley Restaurant Group, Inc., 1811 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super. April 14, 2015).; In an underinsured motorist case, the federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld summary judgment granted in favor of Shane's client.The plaintiff, carrying UM coverage on top of applicable policy limits of $100,000, sued and settled with the other driver for $41,715, the number recommended by an arbitrator.The plaintiff then proceeded against her UM carrier, asserting that her actual damages exceeded the coverage threshold, despite the settlement.The Third Circuit rejected that contention, and affirmed the District Court's holding that the evidence did not support her entitlement to UM benefits-that her damages went beyond the level of applicable third party coverage.The case drew amicus support from the Pennsylvania Association for Justice in support of Plaintiff. Gallagher v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1426 (3d Cir. Jan. 29, 2015).; A unanimous panel of the Superior Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of Shane's client, a heavy construction equipment manufacturer and dealer.Despite being the lone deep pocket in a case with large exposure due to the catastrophic and permanent injuries, the Superior Court agreed that the deposition testimony could not allow the claim to survive summary judgment, because there was no evidence that the design of the product caused the accident and injuries to the plaintiff. Williams v. Anderson Equip. Co., Komatsu American Corporation, 1454 WDA 2013 (Pa. Super. Oct 7, 2014).; In a premises liability case involving severe head and cognitive injuries, Shane successfully defended against suit in Pennsylvania against a California golf resort.The Third Circuit agreed with the District Court that no basis for personal jurisdiction over the resort was demonstrated from the record, but remanded for jurisdictional discovery.After a round of written discovery and depositions, Shane assisted the trial attorney in a new briefing on the jurisdictional issue.The Eastern District of Pennsylvania renewed its conclusion that no basis for jurisdiction could be demonstrated and dismissed the case a second time.There was no appeal. Rocke v. Pebble Beach Company, 541 Fed. Appx. 208 (3d Cir. Oct 10, 2013) & 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60218 (E.D. Pa. April 28, 2014).
Profile Visibility
#1,239 in weekly profile views out of 17,448 lawyers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
#104,626 in weekly profile views out of 1,711,087 total lawyers Overall

Office Information

Shane Haselbarth

2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
PhiladelphiaPA 19103


Professional Networking for Legal Professionals Only

Quickly and easily expand your professional
network - join the premier global network for legal professionals only. It's powered by the
Martindale-Hubbell database - over 1,000,000 lawyers strong.
Join Now