Andrew Thebaud

Andrew handles a significant amount of retail and premises liability cases. These cases involve everything from slip and falls to design and construction defects to assaults and inadequate security claims. He works alongside investigators and experts to provide the best defense for his client. He also takes an economical approach to litigation while staying focused on providing premium customer service.

Andrew also has experience representing clients in labor law cases, including those involving Labor Law 240(1) claims. Many of the plaintiffs in his cases allege serious debilitating injuries that prevent them from working again and seek multi-million dollar settlements. In addition to defending these claims, Andrew has also successfully brought third-party actions against subcontractors to defend and indemnify his clients.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Andrew worked at a New York super-regional firm where he represented nationally known insurance companies, utilities, common carriers and multinational corporations. Andrew is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law where he was a competitor on BLSA Mock Trial Team, a competitor of William Minor Lile Moot Court Competition, and articles editor for the Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal. He received a Bachelor of Arts with honors from the State University of New York at Albany.

Honors & Awards

•The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2021-2025)

Published Works

•'COVID-19'S Impact on the Future of Civil Litigation in New York,' New York Law Journal, February 25, 2021

Thought Leadership

Case Law Alerts

Can spoliation sanctions be imposed for failing to submit to physical examination prior to undergoing surgery on body part allegedly injured by defendant’s tortious conduct?

April 1, 2022

The First Department answered a legal question trial courts have been wrestling with for the past few years: Can spoliation sanctions be imposed on a plaintiff who fails to submit to a physical examination prior to undergoing surgery on a body part that the plaintiff claims was injured by the defendant’s tortious conduct? The First Department held unanimously that sanctions cannot be imposed because “the condition of one’s body is not the type of evidence that is subject to a spoliation analysis.” In Gilliam, the court reasoned that the spoliation analysis has long been applied to a party’s destruction of inanimate evidence (e.g., documents, surveillance videos and electronic data) and should stay that way. The state of one’s body, the First Department argued, is fundamentally different from the “destruction of documents or tangible evidence which spoliation sanctions attempt to ameliorate.” The First Department also concluded that subjecting a plaintiff’s health condition to spoliation analysis is antithetical to personal liberties and personal autonomy over our own bodies.The First Department’s decision effectively changes the landscape of civil litigation and the role of medical examinations in personal injury litigation. The decision is currently under appeal. Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, April 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2024 Shareholder Class And Special Counsel Promotions

December 19, 2023