Christopher M. Reeser

Christopher M. Reeser: Attorney with Marshall Dennehey
  • Office Managing Attorney at Marshall Dennehey
  • 200 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300, Camp Hill, PA 17011
    View Christopher M. Reeser's office location
  • Christopher M. Reeser is a shareholder with Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Chris has gained substantial trial experience in a number of areas of practice including motor vehicle, premises liability, and pharmacy liability. He has also handled a number of underinsured motorist arbitrations and has extensive experience with mediation and arbitration. Chris has also counseled and represented clients in matters related to insurance coverage and professional liability.
  • Overall Rating

    4.9
    .
    21 Reviews
  • Overall Rating

    4.9
    .
    21 Reviews
  • Profile Visibility [ i ]
    • #23 in weekly profile views out of 546 Attorneys in Camp Hill, PA
    • #78,492 in weekly profile views out of 2,345,308 total attorneys Overall
Attorney Awards
About Attorney Awards

Biography

With 29 years of litigation experience in a diverse range of practice areas, Chris represents and defends clients in matters involving motor vehicle, premises liability, construction defect and pharmacy liability. His deep understanding of these areas and breadth of experience is a valuable asset to his clients. Chris also serves as the Casualty Supervisor and Managing Attorney of the Harrisburg office. In this capacity, he oversees the day-to-day operations for the entire office and team of attorneys ensuring that client matters are handled promptly, professionally and effectively.

Chris has represented several large and small automobile insurance carriers and their insureds, numerous hotels, conference centers, and hotel chains as well as grocery store chains, convenience stores, retail stores, pharmacies, and industrial facilities. Chris has defended a number of significant and catastrophic cases involving injuries on building and roadway construction sites. He has also handled a number of underinsured motorist arbitrations and has extensive experience with mediation and arbitration.

Chris also defends fraternal organizations, schools and universities in matters involving contractual disputes, indemnity, dram shop and general negligence. He has counseled and represented clients in matters related to insurance coverage and professional liability. Additionally, he handles cases involving elevators, escalators, moving walkways, electronic doorways, cranes and lifts representing clients in alleged elevator, escalator malfunctions and negligent maintenance.

During his career, Chris has had significant experience handling several hundred motor vehicle matters involving third-party liability, uninsured and underinsured motorist claims along with several hundred premises liability cases. He has litigated jury trials to verdict in 15 different counties in state from South Central Pennsylvania to the Northern tier as well as in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Chris has also been appointed by the President Judge of Dauphin County on multiple occasions to serve as an arbitrator, including a two-year term in which he was asked to serve as the Chairman of an arbitration panel.

Chris is a graduate of Albright College in Reading and the Widener University School of Law in Harrisburg. Chris started practice in Williamsport, working with a small litigation firm. He joined the Williamsport office of Marshall Dennehey in 1997 as an associate and he was elected a shareholder in 2002. In 2004, Chris returned to his hometown of Harrisburg to work in our Harrisburg office.

Honors & Awards

•AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell
•The Best Lawyers in America, “Lawyer of the Year,” Harrisburg, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2025)
•The Best Lawyers in America, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2022-2025)
•Central Penn Business Journal 'Power List For Law' (2025)

Classes/Seminars Taught

Fundamentals of Personal Injury, June 2014
Pennsylvania's Fair Share Act - PAMIC Claims Summit, March, 2012
Basics of Auto Law - Defense Perspective, September 2012
Handling the Auto Injury Claim: Settle the Case Without Going to Court, National Business Institute, August 2008
Releases and Settlements - Tactics, Tips and Techniques, 2007 PAMIC Summit
Tort Claims Act, Pennsylvania Association of Township Supervisors

Published Works

Two Scoops: Superior Court Allows UM/UIM Claimants to Double Dip Workers' Compensation Benefits, Defense Digest, Vol. 11, No. 3, September, 2005
Superior Court Holds New Trial is Warranted Whenever Jury Seeks Own Expert Opinion, Defense Digest, Vol. 9, No. 3, September, 2003

Results

Summary Judgment Won in a Premises Liability Action

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of two homeowners in a premises liability action. One of the homeowners called his father, the plaintiff, asking him to come to his house because he was having his roof replaced and had concerns about the work being done. The plaintiff arrived at the home and observed nails and other debris strewn about the entire property. Nonetheless, he entered the property to assess the roofing work and took care to avoid stepping on any nails. As he was leaving the property, he stepped on a nail, which went through his foot. The plaintiff asserted claims of negligence against both homeowners and also attempted to assert that, because his son requested that he come to inspect the roofing work, he was a business invitee rather than a licensee. We argued that the plaintiff was a licensee as he was a social guest who was merely providing advice to his son. They further argued that the homeowners owed no duty to the plaintiff as he knew the nails were strewn about the property and he understood the risk involved in walking there. We also argued that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by assumption of risk because as he was aware of the nails on the property and, nonetheless, voluntarily proceeded to walk onto the property. The court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners.

Summary Judgment Obtained in a Premises and Product Liability Case

We won a motion for summary judgment in Schuylkill County, PA, in a premises liability and product liability case. We represented the manufacturer of a concrete railroad crossing that was installed at an intersection in 2005. In 2021, the plaintiff was riding his bike across the crossing when his bike tire allegedly became stuck in a gap in the concrete. There was ample evidence that the railroad was responsible for inspecting and maintaining the crossing while our client did nothing other than supply the prefabricated crossing. We argued the gap that developed in the crossing was not the responsibility of the crossing manufacturer and that the statute of repose barred the lawsuit. The court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer.

News

98 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2026 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

August 20, 2025

109 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2025 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

August 15, 2024

Areas of Practice (11)

  • Automobile Liability
  • Premises and Retail Liability
  • Product Liability
  • Insurance Services - Coverage and Bad Faith Litigation
  • Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation
  • Trucking & Transportation Liability
  • Architectural, Engineering and Construction Defect Litigation
  • Fraud/Special Investigation
  • Construction Injury Litigation
  • Catastrophic Claims Litigation
  • Amusements, Sports & Recreation Liability

Education & Credentials

University Attended:
Albright College, B.A., 1991
Law School Attended:
Widener University School of Law, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, J.D., 1994
Year of First Admission:
1994
Admission:
1994, Pennsylvania; 1995, U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania; 2007, U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit; 2016, Maryland; 2020, U.S. District Court District of Maryland
Memberships:

Associations & Memberships

•Dauphin County Bar Association
•Pennsylvania Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
•Pennsylvania Bar Association
•Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Reported Cases:
Significant Representative Matters: A defense verdict in a toxic tort case in which the plaintiff claimed neuro-cognitive deficits as a result of exposure to pesticide which was applied in her home. The plaintiff had called preiminent experts from around the country in the fields of industrial hygiene, occupational medicine, neurotoxicology and pesticide application in support of her claim. The jury found that our client, a large pest control company, was not negligent.; Successful defense of a subrogation claim brought against the manufacturer of a lighting fixture in which it was claimed that the design of the light caused the fire to occur. We were able to establish that the fire was not caused by the design of the light but instead by the misuse of the product by the homeowner, who did not follow the warnings contained on the light regarding its use in conjunction with a salt water aquarium.; Successfully obtaining the dismissal of a fraud claim against a client during trial in the Middle District of Pennsylvania which greatly reduced the insured's exposure in a fire loss case at a commercial facility. The dismissal of the fraud claim insulated our client, a small company, from uninsured exposure.; Successfully defending a large tree cutting company in a case in which it was alleged that an employee of the company was negligent in assisting a mechanic who was performing repairs to the hydraulic system on a boom truck resulting in a crush injury to the mechanic in which he lost a portion of bone in his forearm following contraction of MRSA.; Successfully defending a nail salon in a fall down case in which the plaintiff claimed that she was improperly escorted to a chair following a pedicure and had to undergo a multi-level cervical fusion as a result of her fall.; Successfully defended a claim against a pharmacy in which the plaintiff, a physician, was dispensed an antipsychotic medication instead of his usual beta blocker. As a result, the plaintiff claimed post traumatic stress disorder and a permanent loss of income as a result of suffering stroke-like conditions requiring him to be life flighted to a hospital. The jury concluded that the plaintiff did not sustain post traumatic stress disorder and suffered no permanent physical injury and awarded only a nominal amount of money.; Successfully defended a fraternal organization which was sued as a result of an alleged assault by a security guard against an animal rights protestor outside of a circus. The jury concluded that the assault did not occur and the case resulted in a defense verdict.; ; Representative Cases: Gandhi v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 2020 WL 7769776; Marks v. The Reserve at Hershey Meadows, LEXIS 47325 (U.S. Dist. 2007); Calhoun v. Prudential General Ins. Co., LEXIS 44302 (U.S. Dist. 2005); Allstate v. Leiter, 306 F.Supp. 2d 488 (M.D. Pa. 2004); Published Works: Two Scoops: Superior Court Allows UM/UIM Claimants to Double Dip Workers' Compensation Benefits, Defense Digest, Vol. 11, No. 3, September, 2005; Superior Court Holds New Trial is Warranted Whenever Jury Seeks Own Expert Opinion, Defense Digest, Vol. 9, No. 3, September, 2003
ISLN:
909751935

Peer Reviews

4.9/5.0 (21 reviews)
Martindale-Hubbell® AV Preeminent Rating Badge
  • Legal Knowledge

    5.0/5.0
  • Analytical Capability

    4.9/5.0
  • Judgment

    5.0/5.0
  • Communication

    4.8/5.0
  • Legal Experience

    5.0/5.0
  • 5.0/5.0 Rated by a Attorney on 01/12/21 in Litigation

    My observations of Mr. Reeser were prior to his relocation from Williamsport to Harrisburg several years ago.

  • 5.0/5.0 Rated by a Attorney on 12/03/20 in Litigation

    Chris is a high quality attorney. I have had multiple cases with him and I respect him.

  • 5.0/5.0 Rated by a Attorney on 12/03/20 in Personal Injury

    excellent defense attorney. good trial alwyer.

  • 5.0/5.0 Rated by a Attorney on 11/29/20 in Construction Defects

    Chris is an excellent attorney. He is prepared, smart, thoughtful, critical, and vigorous in his advocacy. He does all of this while remaining civil and fair. Chris is a formidable adversaryand decent and personable to deal with on all issues.

  • 5.0/5.0 Rated by a Managing Partner on 11/16/20 in Personal Injury

  • 5.0/5.0 Rated by a Senior Attorney on 11/13/20 in Litigation

    Have had multiple contacts when Attorney Reeser has been representing the opposing party. He works diligently to resolve matters fairly and on a timely basis.

  • 5.0/5.0 Rated by a Partner on 11/13/20 in Litigation

  • 5.0/5.0 Rated by a Attorney on 11/13/20 in Torts

    I have been on opposite sides of numerous personal injury cases with Attorney Reeser and I have always found him to be highly knowledgeable and effective as well as ethical and congenial. He is deserving of your highest rating.

  • 5.0/5.0 Rated by a Attorney on 11/13/20 in Litigation

  • 5.0/5.0 Rated by a Partner on 11/13/20 in Litigation

    I have had a number of complex cases with Attorney Reeser. He is a zealous advocate for his clients and he always provides them with pragmatic solutions to their often complex situations.

Peer reviews submitted prior to 2008 are not displayed.

Client Reviews Write a Review

Location

Contact Christopher M. Reeser

Contact Information

Preferred contact method
reCAPTCHA is required Invalid reCAPTCHA

By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.