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
N/R
 N/R

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 - Defense
  • 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
 
Memberships 

Associations & Memberships

•Pennsylvania Bar Association
•Philadelphia Bar Association

 
Biography

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, product 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, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and for two years for the Honorable William J. Zloch, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 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.

Honors & Awards

•Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star, 2015

Year Joined Organization

2010

Classes/Seminars Taught

Highlights in Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Law, Health Care and Health Law Seminar, Marshall Dennehey, November 5, 2015

Publications

Statute of limitations on a declaratory judgment action begins to run when the insurer has enough facts to support the contention that it has no duty to defend.

Law Alerts • October 2, 2015

The trial court had held that the statute of limitations begins to run when the insurer is given a copy of the complaint. The en banc Pennsylvania Superior Court disagreed and held that the statute begins to run when the cause of action arises. And..., Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2015 Case 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...

Failure to obtain transcript of oral argument waives issue on appeal, despite opponent filing that very transcript with its brief on appeal

Law Alerts • July 6, 2015

The district court granted partial summary judgment to Lehman Bros., stating in its opinion that Gateway had abandoned its argument on one aspect of the case during a telephonic oral argument. Gateway appealed, and asserted that: (a) the district..., Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2015 Case 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...

Treatment records for alcohol abuse protected from discovery, even if person receiving treatment was an intoxicated anesthesiologist who caused the death of the patient

Law Alerts • July 6, 2015

The plaintiff Administratrix of the estate of the deceased surgical patient sued, among others, the anesthesiologist, whom she alleged was intoxicated during the surgery. On the assertion that the anesthesiologist had a history of alcohol abuse, the..., Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2015 Case 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 2015 Case 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...

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 2015 Case 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

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

 
Reported CasesSignificant Representative Matters: The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed by unanimous opinion a verdict in favor of Shane's insurer client in this first-party breach of contract action. The plaintiff suffered damages to his retail inventory caused by smoke and soot infiltration from a nearby fire, and made a claim for remediation under the policy. The insurer adjusted the loss and issued a check per the terms of the policy for the whole loss amount. After depositing the check, the plaintiff filed suit seeking additional damage, represented as additional cleaning and restoration costs. At trial, the plaintiff presented the testimony of its owner, who justified the claim for additional damages by the ongoing cleaning costs for the inventory. The defense relied on the expert testimony of a certified restoration company, who could perform the job at a fraction of the cost. The trial court found that the defense figure was the true cost of damages, and the Superior Court rejected the plaintiff's argument on appeal. The Classic Lighting Emporium, Inc. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 3158 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Nov. 17, 2015).; A unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the entry of judgment in favor of Shane's client, an employer with a healthcare plan governed by ERISA. The plaintiff sought statutory damages of up to $110 per day going back years, plus attorney's fees, against the employer and the co-defendant third-party administrator, asserting that she was unable to obtain requested documents from both parties, which were necessary to appeal the termination of her long-term disability benefits. Against the employer specifically, the plaintiff asserted that it had a duty to amend historical plan documents to update its address, as she relied on an old address in seeking documents without success. The Eleventh Circuit rejected the claim, holding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award statutory penalties, especially where the Plaintiff not only had the document she later requested, but also had the means of knowing the proper address to which to send requests. Smiley v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, 610 Fed. Appx. 8, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12334 (11th Cir. Jul. 17, 2015).; 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).; Published Works: The Phantom Vehicle: Prejudice in Delayed UM Claim Not Presumed, But Certainly Demonstrable, Defense Digest, Vol. 20, No. 1, March 2014; Case Law Alerts, regular contributor, January 2014-present
 
ISLN921277437
 
Profile Visibility
#1,156 in weekly profile views out of 17,392 lawyers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
#110,987 in weekly profile views out of 1,739,582 total lawyers Overall

Office Information

Shane Haselbarth

2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
PhiladelphiaPA 19103




Loading...
 

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