Atty. David D. Blake
David is a member of the firm's Professional Liability Department and devotes his practice largely to insurance coverage, bad faith litigation, and the defense of insurance agents/brokers. His experience with insurance coverage matters include all lines of business including first party property, commercial liability and specialty lines policies.
Profile Summary
About David D. Blake at a glance
David D. Blake is a Shareholder based in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, practicing at Marshall Dennehey. They have 31+ years of legal experience, licensed to practice since 1995. Their practice focuses on litigation and insurance. Admitted to practice in New Jersey (1995) and U.S. District Court District of New Jersey (1996). Educated at Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law (J.D., 1994) and Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (B.A., 1990). Active member of Associations & memberships Camden County Bar Association New Jersey State Bar Association, Insurance Section. Serands clients in Mount Laurel, NJ and the surrounding metropolitan area.
Want to Get Service From This Attorney?
Sign up free and choose one of the two methods below.
Have a legal question? Sign up free, submit it through the Ask the Attorney module and receive a focused answer from a specialist.
- Free to ask a question
- Answers from specialist attorneys
- Optional private / anonymous question
Request an online video meeting or an in-person consultation at the attorney's office. Pick a time that works for you and share the details securely.
- Online video meeting
- In-person at the attorney's office
- Secure messaging and payment
Über uns
- David is a member of the firm's Professional Liability Department and devotes his practice largely to insurance coverage, bad faith litigation, and the defense of insurance agents/brokers
- His experience with insurance coverage matters include all lines of business including first party property, commercial liability and specialty lines policies
- David provides consultation services to insurers and self-insured clients covering all aspects of New Jersey claims handling practices
- Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, David was assistant solicitor for the City of Pleasantville, New Jersey, City of Absecon, New Jersey, Northfield, New Jersey and special counsel to the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA), as well as assistant planning board attorney for Galloway Township, New Jersey
- David is a 1990 graduate of Rutgers University (NCAS) and received his juris doctor from Claude W. Pettit College of Law at Ohio Northern University in 1994
- While in law school, David received the American Jurisprudence Awards for Excellence in the study of Insurance Law, Trusts & Estates and Secured Transactions as well as making the Dean’s List
- Honors & Awards •The Best Lawyers in America, Litigation - Insurance (2023-2026) The Best Lawyers list is issued by Woodward & White
- A description of the selection methodology can be found here
- No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey
- Published Works •'Supreme Court of New Jersey Rules That Insurers Do Not Have a Duty to Defend or Indemnify for ‘Laidlow’ Claims-as Long as the Policy Includes the Correct Exclusionary Language,' New Jersey Law Journal, April 7, 2025 •'State Of The Occurrence,' Defense Digest, 2012-06, Vol. 18, No. 2 Presentations •Bad Faith and Fair Dealing in New Jersey, client seminar, May 26, 2021 Results Successfully Overturned $1.8 Million Judgment on Appeal in New Jersey We successfully overturned a $1.8 million judgment on appeal in a case that involved the Laidlow exclusion in a workers’ compensation/employers liability policy
- The decedent succumbed to heat exhaustion while at work, and the plaintiff alleged the death was due to working conditions the employer knew were substantially certain to lead to injury
- Our client, the insurer, offered to defend the employer, but only to the extent of obtaining dismissal of the workers’ compensation claim, which was filed in the wrong forum
- The insured rejected the offer, and suit for the injury and coverage claims commenced
- At summary judgment, the trial court refused to apply the policy’s clear and prominent Laidlow exclusion barring all coverage for claims in the Superior Court whether alleged as negligent or intentional
- The trial court entered judgment in the amount of the arbitration award and awarded defense costs for the Laidlow suit, costs of the declaratory judgment action and interest
- The matter went up on appeal
- After briefing, but before argument, the New Jersey Supreme Court released the Rodriguez decision, which validated our client’s position on application of the Laidlow exclusion and went even further to hold that the employer’s liability carrier has no obligation to provide a defense for the common law negligence claims filed in the Superior Court
- The trial court refused to apply the principles enunciated by the appellate division in the Rodriguez decision and refused to apply the reasoning of a second unpublished appellate court decision directly on point
- The trial court simply ignored the cases, reasoning they were unpublished
- Prior to oral argument in our matter, the Rodriguez decision was published, and the plaintiffs abandoned the case, settling for nuisance value
- Defense Verdict Secured in Contentious Fire Loss Case We obtained a hard fought defense verdict in a contentious case involving a total fire loss at a duplex owned by a single mother
- The investigation revealed that the named insured did not reside in the home and, instead, rented the two units
- The claim denial included application misrepresentations and issues related to the fact that the insured property did not meet the policy’s definition of a “residence premises.” Ultimately, the court decided that the property did meet the “residence premises” definition
- We were left to try the case based on material misrepresentations and tasked with convincing the jury that a single mother, who paid her premium and suffered an accidental and total fire loss, should be precluded from recovery
- The jury disregarded the sympathetic plaintiff, believed the insured lied during the investigation and applied New Jersey insurance law on material misrepresentations as instructed by the court
- The plaintiff had turned down $150K prior to trial
- Thought Leadership Supreme Court of New Jersey Rules That Insurers Do Not Have a Duty to Defend or Indemnify for ‘Laidlow’ Claims-as Long as the Policy Includes the Correct Exclusionary Language April 7, 2025 The general rule that has developed for an injured employee to proceed and prevail upon a Laidlow claim against their employer is that it must be shown that the employer either subjectively desired to harm its employee or knew that its acts were “substantially certain” to result in injury to or death of the employee
- Legal Updates for Employment Law New Jersey Supreme Court Decides Laidlow Exclusion Is Valid December 20, 2024 Rodriguez v
- Shelbourne Spring, LLC, A-2079-22, December 12, 2024On December 12, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the validity of the intentional act exclusion (Laidlow exclusion) contained in standard workers’ compensation and employers’ liability policies
- The court also addressed a carrier’s duty to defend negligence-based claims filed in the Law Division under Part One (statutory compensation benefits) or Part Two coverage (employers’ liability) of standard policies
- In Shelbourne, the claimant filed and received workers’ compensation benefits for a work-related injury
- The claimant then filed a personal injury suit in the Law Division, alleging what is commonly known as a Laidlow claim
- As the standard practice is known, the plaintiff’s attorney included allegations of negligence, along with the Laidlow claim, in an effort to bring the carrier in to defend given the allegations of negligence
- The New Jersey Supreme Court held, in a unanimous decision, that there is no duty to defend the negligence claims-whether alleged as a simple, gross or reckless conduct-under Part One and that the C4 and C5 exclusions (as amended and approved by the New Jersey Compensation Rating & Inspection Bureau in 2007) barred coverage for the negligence and substantially certain clams (Laidlow)
- The court rejected the notion that the Laidlow exclusion violated public policy
- In doing so, the court distinguished older cases that did not address the amended exclusion
- A more comprehensive analysis of the decision and its greater impact will appear in the March 2025 edition of the firms’ newsletter Defense Digest
- New Jersey Legal Update - December 20, 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal 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
- We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon
- ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved
- No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm
- For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com
- 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
Practice Areas Explained
David D. Blake's Areas of Practice
Each practice area below reflects the types of cases David D. Blake handles, with a brief overview of what that area of law covers.
Civil litigation attorneys for breach of contract, business disputes, civil rights, and class action lawsuits.
David D. Blake is one of 454,532 litigation attorneys indexed nationally. Browse litigation attorneys in New Jersey →
Insurance attorneys for coverage disputes, bad faith claims, denied claims, and policy disputes.
David D. Blake is one of 121,912 insurance attorneys indexed nationally. Browse insurance attorneys in New Jersey →
Jurisdictional Context
Why local counsel matters in New Jersey
Practicing law in New Jersey. Legal matters in New Jersey are governed by state-specific rules of civil and criminal procedure, statutes of limitations, and substantive law. Cases originating in Mount Laurel are typically filed in the local municipal court or the appropriate New Jersey state district court, depending on subject matter and amount in controversy. An attorney licensed in New Jersey brings working knowledge of local procedural deadlines, judicial practices in this andnue, and the substantive law that applies to cases brought here. Out-of-state attorneys generally cannot represent clients in New Jersey courts without local counsel or pro hac vice admission.
Looking for additional New Jersey attorneys? Browse all attorneys in Mount Laurel or all attorneys in New Jersey.
Frequently Asked
Common questions about David D. Blake
Where is David D. Blake's law office located?
What practice areas does David D. Blake handle?
How long has David D. Blake practiced law?
Where did David D. Blake go to law school?
How can I contact David D. Blake for a consultation?
Practice Areas
Education
Bar Admissions
Bewertungen
No reviews yet.