Mary McWilliams Dengler

Mary McWilliams Dengler: Attorney with Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. AV stamp icon


Profile & Honors

Mary McWilliams Dengler is a principal of Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. In the course of almost two decades of practicing law, Ms. Dengler has acquired significant experience in the areas of insurance defense, appellate practice, food and beverage industry, insurance coverage litigation, real estate professional and appraiser litigation, nursing home litigation, personal injury litigation, premises liability, product liability litigation, and transportation litigation, with a particular emphasis in civil litigation.

Ms. Dengler’s experience comprises virtually all stages of litigation, including pretrial briefing and motions practice, offensive and defensive discovery, the taking and defending of depositions of fact and expert witnesses, pretrial and settlement negotiations, the preparation of fact and expert witnesses for trial, jury instructions and verdict forms, and post-trial and appellate briefing. She has worked with a wide range of experts, including medical experts, real estate professionals, engineers, accountants, and experts specializing in accident reconstruction. Ms. Dengler has successfully tried throughout the state of Ohio multiple personal injury, premises liability, and insurance coverage cases. She successfully prepared and argued numerous cases at the appellate level, including the Supreme Court of Ohio, with positive outcomes.

Prior to joining Dickie McCamey, Ms. Dengler was an attorney at a Columbus-based law firm. She also interned at the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals.

Professional Accomplishments

•AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated by Martindale-Hubbell


•Church of the Resurrection Roman Catholic Church (New Albany, Ohio) Outreach Ministry
•St. Gabriel Catholic Radio (Columbus, Ohio) Fundraising Drive

Presentations & Publications


Insurance Coverage for Ohio Employment Claims (Co-Author), National Business Institute, 1998
Trying the Soft Tissue Injury Case in Ohio (Co-Author), National Business Institute, 1998


6/21/2018 Articles News

Diacetyl and “Popcorn Lung” Claims - Defending the Food and Flavorings Industries


6/21/2018 Articles News

Diacetyl and “Popcorn Lung” Claims - Defending the Food and Flavorings Industries

Areas of Practice (7)

  • Appellate
  • Food and Beverage Industry
  • Insurance Law and Litigation
  • Product Liability
  • Railroad Law
  • Litigation and Regulatory Counsel
  • Transportation Law

Education & Credentials

Contact Information:
614-258-6000  Phone
888-811-7144  Fax
University Attended:
Le Moyne College, B.A., 1983
Law School Attended:
The University of Toledo College of Law, J.D., 1986
Year of First Admission:
Ohio Bar Admission; United States District Court for the Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio; United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit


•Claims and Litigation Management (CLM) Alliance
•Columbus Bar Association (Negligence Law Committee, Insurance Law Committee, and Real Estate Law Committee)
•Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys
•Ohio State Bar Association (Negligence Law Committee and Insurance Law Committee)

Birth Information:
Amityville, New York, 1961
Reported Cases:
Representative Matters: Thomas Bonasera, Administrator of the Estate of Cecil McDaniel v. Richard Turiel: tried to a defense verdict and protected judgment in the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District. Plaintiff brought a landlord negligence claim against the defendant alleging the defendant failed to maintain the premises and failed to maintain smoke detectors thereby causing the death of a tenant; Jenkins v. James B. Day & Co., 69 Ohio St. 3d 541 (1994): successfully defended a product liability wrongful death claim brought against the James B. Day Co. This product liability claim arises out of the death of a young woman and was based upon alleged inadequate written warnings accompanying the product. The young woman allegedly inhaled methylene chloride. The case was originally dismissed on summary judgment and ultimately appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which held that the Federal Hazardous Substance Act, which governed the subject product, provided a limited preemption of state law in the area of labeling of hazardous substances. On remand the case was tried to a defense verdict; Remington v. Triplett: summary judgment granted in the Court of Common Pleas and upheld in the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth Appellate District, in favor of defendant, The Cincinnati Insurance Company. The court found the insured expressly and knowingly rejected UM/UIM coverage and therefore The Cincinnati Insurance Company had no obligation to provide such coverage; Wolfe v. HER, Inc.: successfully defended in trial, breach of contract claims, negligence claims, and punitive damage claims brought by plaintiff against defendant HER, Inc. and defendant real estate property manager; Gallihugh v. United Skates of America: summary judgment granted in the Court of Common Pleas and upheld in the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District, in favor of defendant United Skates of America. The court determined the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury as set forth in O.R.C. 4171.09 and 4171.10.

Peer Reviews

  • 4.7/5.0 (15 reviews)
  • High ethical standing icon
  • A Martindale-Hubbell Peer Rating reflects a combination of achieving a Very High General Ethical Standards rating and a Legal Ability numerical rating.
  • Legal Knowledge

  • Analytical Capability

  • Judgment

  • Communication

  • Legal Experience


See All 15 Reviews »

*Peer Reviews provided before April 15, 2008 are not displayed.

Documents (1)

Documents by this lawyer on

Columbus, Ohio

Contact Mary McWilliams Dengler

Required Fields

Required Fields

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.