Patricia M. McDonagh

Patricia M. McDonagh: Attorney with Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C.
  • Shareholder at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C. (503 Attorneys)
  • 425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 302, Roseland, NJ 07068
    View Patricia M. McDonagh's office location
  • Patricia M. McDonagh is a shareholder with Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Her practice is devoted largely to insurance coverage litigation and consulting, bad faith litigation, environmental and toxic tort litigation, and appellate practice.
  • Peer Reviews

    4.4/5.0 (0)
  • Profile Visibility [ i ]
    • #44 in weekly profile views out of 1,338 Attorneys in Roseland, NJ
    • #46,947 in weekly profile views out of 1,822,215 total attorneys Overall
Attorney Awards


Patricia concentrates her practice primarly on insurance coverage litigation and counseling, bad faith litigation, environmental and toxic tort litigation, and appellate practice. She has represented a large number of insurance companies and insurance industry professionals in both first and third party insurance coverage and bad faith matters. Patricia provides coverage opinions and advice to insurance carriers concerning their coverage obligations under insurance policies they issued and which provided CGL, homeowners', automobile liability, UM/UIM, PIP, workers' compensation and/or employer's liability coverage. She has also represented oil delivery companies and other third parties in litigation where they have been asked to assume or share in the costs of state-mandated clean up and remediation of environmental contamination. In addition, Patricia has had a great deal of experience in the defense of general liability, professional malpractice and products liability matters.

In 1990, Patricia graduated magna cum laude from Fairfield University. She then went on to obtain her juris doctor from Villanova University School of Law in 1993, after which she was admitted to the bar in the states of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

After working for another defense litigation law firm in Morristown, New Jersey, Patricia joined Marshall Dennehey in 1997 and practices in the firm's Roseland, New Jersey, office, where she oversees the bad faith/coverage matters in that office.

Year Joined Organization: 1997


Legal Updates for Coverage and Bad Faith
Law Alerts • March 28, 2019
Edited by Allison L. Krupp, Esq. New Jersey Supreme Court Holds that Evidence of an Insured’s Uncompensated Medical Expenses Falling Between the Insured’s Selected PIP Coverage and the Statutory Maximum PIP Coverage of $250,000 Is..., The material in this law alert has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific...

Major Victories

Court Finds Plaintiff Not Entitled to UIM Coverage.
Apr 11, 2019
We obtained summary judgment in favor of our insurance company client. The plaintiff sought UIM coverage from our client as a resident relative of the client’s named insured. The plaintiff was a named insured on another policy which provided...

Areas of Practice (5)

  • Insurance Coverage / Bad Faith
  • Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation
  • Appellate Practice
  • Professional Liability
  • Premises Liability

Education & Credentials

Contact Information:
(973) 618-4116  Phone
(973) 618-0685  Fax
University Attended:
Fairfield University, B.A., English, magna cum laude, 1990
Law School Attended:
Villanova University School of Law, Villanova, Pennsylvania, J.D., 1993
Year of First Admission:
1993, New Jersey; 1993, Pennsylvania

Associations & Memberships

• Essex County Bar Association

• New Jersey State Bar Association

Reported Cases:
Significant Representative Matters: Obtained summary judgment in favor of an automobile liability insurance carrier, wherein court upheld carrier's disclaimer of defense and indemnity coverage to its insured in response to personal injury lawsuit brought against insured arising from motor vehicle accident on the basis that insured had made material misrepresentations on his insurance policy application as to where he resided and principally garaged the insured vehicle.; Successfully represented an insurance carrier in a declaratory judgment action, wherein carrier disclaimed coverage to insured under an automobile liability insurance policy with regard to an underlying personal injury lawsuit brought against insured arising from a motor vehicle accident because insured failed to provide the carrier with notice of either the accident or the resultant lawsuit and which, in turn, substantially prejudiced the insurer.; Obtained summary judgment on behalf of defendant employers and having all claims against them dismissed in civil lawsuits brought against them by their own employees for injuries the employees sustained in the workplace on the basis that there was no evidence to support a finding that the intentional wrong exception to the workers' compensation bar applied. In one of these cases, in particular, after successfully in having the plaintiff employee's claim against his employer dismissed, the employee continued to litigate his claim against the remaining defendant, a forklift manufacturer, resulting in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff in excess of $1 million, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal.; Obtained summary judgment in favor of a commercial general liability carrier in a declaratory judgment action, successfully limiting the CGL carrier's potential liability exposure in a case involving serious injuries to two plaintiffs as a result of a robbery. Received a favorable ruling from the court that the $100,000 aggregate policy limit, set forth in the CGL policy's Assault & Battery Endorsement, was the applicable liability coverage limit potentially available to the injured plaintiffs under the CGL policy and not the $1 million per occurrence coverage limit, set forth in the policy's Declarations, as was argued by the plaintiffs.; Successfully defended a CGL insurance carrier in a claim brought against it by the landlord/owner of a warehouse for defense and indemnity coverage as an Additional Insured under a CGL insurance policy issued by the carrier to one of the tenants at the warehouse in a high-exposure property damage loss case arising from a fire on the basis that the landlord did not qualify as an additional insured on the policy pursuant to the Additional Insured Endorsement and the landlord's claim should be a claim against its insurance broker for professional negligence in not procuring the proper insurance coverage requested by the landlord.; Obtained summary judgment in favor of a subcontractor on an indemnity cross-claim, where the contract at issue, between the subcontractor and the general contractor, did not include the required express language that the general contractor would be indemnified for own negligence.; Published Works: New Jersey Supreme Court Holds that Evidence of an Insured's Uncompensated Medical Expenses Falling Between the Insured's Selected PIP Coverage and the Statutory Maximum PIP Coverage of $250,000 Is Inadmissible, Legal Updates for Coverage and Bad Faith, March 28, 2019; New Jersey Environmental Insurance Law: The Battle Over Coverage Between Insurers and Policyholders, Arising from Owned Property Exclusion Clauses in CGL Policies, Defense Digest, Fall 2004; Are E-Mails Privileged?, For The Defense, November 2000

Peer Reviews

A Martindale-Hubbell Peer Rating reflects a combination of achieving a Very High General Ethical Standards rating and a Legal Ability numerical rating.

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

Roseland, New Jersey

Contact Patricia M. McDonagh

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.