Hare, John J.

Current Employment Position(s)

Shareholder; Chair, Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group

Lawyer Overview

John is a highly-experienced appellate attorney who serves as Chair of the firm's seven-attorney Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group. He has litigated more than 300 appeals in state and federal appellate courts. John's diverse practice includes cases involving professional malpractice, civil rights claims, product liability, toxic torts, construction accidents, employment claims, and premises liability. In addition to litigating cases in the appellate courts, he is actively engaged in developing and implementing both trial and appellate strategy, prosecuting and defending pre-trial, trial, and post-trial motions, and acting as appellate counsel on trial teams in high-exposure cases.   John also frequently speaks on appellate topics and has submitted amicus curiae briefs to appellate courts on behalf of various organizations. 

Along with former Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Patrick Tamilia, John was commissioned by the Superior Court in 1995 to draft a comprehensive history of the Court to commemorate its Centennial Anniversary. The book, entitled Keystone of Justice: The Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1895-1995, was published by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 2000 and is one of the nation's leading studies of a state appellate court.

In 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, John was recognized by Law & Politics/Philadelphia Magazine as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer in the area of appellate practice, a distinction applied to five percent of Pennsylvania attorneys based upon a peer selection and evaluation process.  John also appears in the 2009 and 2010 editions of Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition.

Significant Representative Cases

• In the first Pennsylvania decision addressing the recoverability of attorneys' fees on a jury's award of future medical expenses under the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, the Court held that such fees are paid out of, not in addition to, the award of future medical expenses, after reduction to present value, and that no fees may be awarded on portions of the future medical expenses that do not become due and owing.  This ruling substantially reduced a judgment against John's client.  Sayler v. St. Luke's Hospital, 2006-C-2210V (Lehigh County, March 4, 2011).
   
• In a decision reconciling two conflicting lines of cases, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court ruling that John's client, an insurance company, had a duty to defend a lawsuit claiming that the intoxicated insured assaulted and attempted to kill the plaintiff before taking his own life.  The central issue in the case was whether and to what extent allegations of intoxication can convert otherwise intentional conduct into an accident for purposes of securing insurance coverage.  Addressing "tension" in the existing case law, the Court reasoned in its published decision  that Pennsylvania public policy forbids the extension of insurance coverage to obviously intentional conduct and that allegations of intoxication can create a duty to defend only when the allegations indicate that the insured was so intoxicated that he lacked conscious awareness of his actions or lacked the ability to form intent.  State Farm Fire & Casualty Co v. The Estate of Thomas Mehlman,  2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 27544 (3d Cir., 2009)

• The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a $5 million verdict against John's client and remanded for a new trial on the basis that the jury should have been allowed to consider whether the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations.  Urbach v. Kentile, Inc., et al., 915 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 1351 (Pa. 2007)

• The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and awarded a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, vacating a verdict of more than $2 million against John's client, a mutual insurance company, on the basis that the insurer's conduct in handling a fire damage claim did not constitute bad faith as a matter of law.  Edkin v. Brethren Mutual Insurance Co., 1331 MDA 2009 (Pa. Super., February 4, 2011)

• The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated an adverse jury verdict and remanded for a new trial in favor of John's client, one of the world's leading construction firms, in its claim for more than $1 million in contractual indemnity.  Skanska USA Buildings, Inc. v. Gory Mechanical Contractors, 345 EDA 2010 (Pa. Super., January 19, 2011)

• In the first comprehensive appellate decision interpreting Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3-1042.6, Pennsylvania's tort reform measure intended to increase the threshold of merit for professional liability actions, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded for the entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of John's client, a physician, based upon the plaintiff's failure to file a certificate of merit in support of his medical malpractice claim. O'Hara v. Randall, 879 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. 2005)

• In the first appellate decision interpreting and applying Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006(a.1), Pennsylvania's tort reform measure involving venue, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court and held that the plaintiff's medical malpractice action against John's client, a physician, must be transferred out of Philadelphia County. Connor v. Crozer Keystone Health Sys., 832 A.2d 1112 (Pa. Super. 2003)

• The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed two lower courts and awarded a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, erasing a substantial judgment against John's client, a professional corporation, on the basis that the plaintiff's res ipsa loquitur theory of liability was invalid as a matter of law. Toogood v. Rogal, 824 A.2d 1140 (Pa. 2003)

• The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and awarded a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, erasing a substantial judgment against John's client, a hospital, on the basis that, although the plaintiff had adduced some evidence to support her claims, the evidence was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence. Van Zandt v. Holy Redeemer Hospital, 806 A.2d 809 (Pa. 2002)

• The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the judgment of the federal district court and ruled that an ordinance passed by John's client, a Pennsylvania municipality, did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Philadelphia Owners Association v. City of Philadelphia et al, 57 Fed. Appx. 961 (3d Cir. 2003)

• The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded for the re-entry of judgment in favor of John's client, a nonprofit corporation that had entered into an agreement to buy real estate, on the basis that the trial court had erroneously stricken the judgment. Crystal Lake Camps v. Alford, 2007 PA Super 119 (Pa. Super. 2007)

• The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and dismissed the plaintiff's civil rights claims on the basis that John's clients, county officials, were entitled to absolute immunity from liability for actions taken in their official capacities. Laverdure v. County of Montgomery, 324 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2003)

• The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's product liability claims against John's client, a manufacturer of scaffolding equipment, after a jury found that the manufacturer was not responsible for the construction accident that injured the plaintiff. Johnson v. Vanguard Manufacturing, 34 Fed. Appx. 858 (3d Cir. 2002)

• The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims against John's clients, attorneys and their law firm, on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to prove the necessary element of causation. My Le Duong v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27617 (3d Cir. 2006)

• The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and upheld the dismissal of all claims against John's client, a law firm, on the basis that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Seawright v. Greenberg, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9248 (3d Cir. 2007)

• The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to retry her claims against John's client, a hospital. Stalsitz v. Allentown Hospital, 814 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2004)

• The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court, which entered judgment for John's client, that the City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Phillies owed no duty to a spectator at a baseball game who was partially blinded when hit by a foul ball. Pakett v. The City of Philadelphia et al, 871 A.2d 304 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)
  

Areas of Practice

• Appellate Litigation
• Post-Trial Litigation

Representative Cases

• Toogood v. Rogal, 824 A.2d 1140 (Pa. 2003)
• Philadelphia Owners Association v. City of Philadelphia et al, 57 Fed. Appx. 961 (3d Cir. 2003)
• Laverdure v. County of Montgomery, 324 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2003)
• Johnson v. Vanguard Manufacturing, 34 Fed. Appx. 858 (3d Cir. 2002)
• O'Hara v. Randall, 879 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. 2005)
• Connor v. Crozer Keystone Health Sys., 832 A.2d 1112 (Pa. Super. 2003)
• Stalsitz v. Allentown Hospital, 814 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2004)
• Van Zandt v. Holy Redeemer Hospital, 806 A.2d 809 (Pa. 2002)
• Pakett v. The City of Philadelphia et al, 871 A.2d 304 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)
• Seawright v. Greenberg, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9248 (3d Cir. 2007)
• Crystal Lake Camps v. Alford, 2007 PA Super 119 (Pa. Super. 2007)
• My Le Duong v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27617 (3d Cir. 2006)

West Practice Categories

Litigation & Appeals

Bar Admissions

• U.S. Supreme Court
• Pennsylvania, 1994
• U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit
• U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
• U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania
• U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania

Professional Associations and Memberships

• Bar Association for the Third Federal Circuit
• Pennsylvania Bar Association
• Philadelphia Bar Association

Honors and Awards

• Pennsylvania Super Lawyer (2008-2011)

Classes and Seminars

• Appellate Mediation in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, December 7, 2009
• Winning (Or Not Losing) Your Case On Appeal, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, August 19, 2010
• Appellate Advocacy Practicum, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, April 7, 2011
• Symposium on Medical Malpractice, An Update in Pennsylvania Law, 2010-2011, November 3, 2011

Past Employment Positions

• Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Hon. Patrick R. Tamilia, Law Clerk, 1994 - 1997
• U.S. Marines, 1986 - 1990

Education

• Duquesne University School of Law, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1993
  J.D.
  Law Review: Duquesne Law Review, Senior Editor
• Princeton University, 1999
  Completed Ph.D. Coursework, Legal History
• University of California, 1998
  M.A., Legal History
• Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1990
  B.A.
  Honors: magna cum laude

Published Works

• Keystone of Justice: A History of the Pennsylvania Superior Court; 1895-1995, co-author with Hon. P. Tamilia, Superior Court of Pa., Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, January, 2000
• Protecting Their Own; The Power Of Administrative Agencies To Enforce Regulations Through Litigation, Defense Digest, May, 2003
• The Legal Doctrines Of Waiver And Estoppel May Not Be Used To Expand The Scope Of An Insurance Policy To Cover Excluded Risks, Defense Digest, September, 2002
• Defining "Beneficiary" In A Wrongful Death Action Under The Pennsylvania Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association Act, Defense Digest, August, 2001
• Pennsylvania Appellate News, Defense Digest, 2001-2008
• Note, Freedom of the Press and the Right to a Fair Trial in Pennsylvania, 30 Duq.L.Rev. 760, 1992

Address

1845 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-4797

Phones

(215) 575-2609

Faxes

(215) 575-0856

Emails

Contact Us

Websites

http://www.marshalldennehey.com