Adam Fogarty, General Attorney in Mount Laurel, New Jersey

Adam is a member of the Casualty Department where he handles all sorts of civil litigation matters involving claims of personal injury and property damage. He frequently advises insurance carriers and defends clients in matters of premises liability (residential, commercial, restaurant, and retail) and motor vehicle torts, including for claims of wrongful death and punitive damages. Adam also has experience defending against claims of construction defect, employment discrimination, negligent security, asbestos exposure, and products liability.

Adam has drafted countless motions for summary judgment that have resulted in the parties reaching a mutually amenable settlement agreement before the outcome of the motion was decided. He has also had numerous such motions decided in favor of his clients, resulting in the immediate dismissal of all claims against them.

Adam has assisted clients in navigating through the civil court system, some for their first time. He takes additional time to counsel and advise his clients and their carriers, partnering with them to develop effective and efficient strategies for resolving their claims.

Prior to practicing civil litigation, Adam spent years practicing personal bankruptcy law in the Federal Districts of New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania. This has given him a unique approach to engaging in settlement negotiations, particularly when on behalf of potentially “judgment-proof” clients.

Adam graduated magna cum laude from The College of New Jersey in 2003. Thereafter, he attended Rutgers School of Law - Camden, where he was Managing Editor of the Rutgers Law Journal. He graduated in 2007. Before practicing law, Adam clerked for the Honorable Thomas A. Brown, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division of the New Jersey Superior Court in Camden, New Jersey.

Adam calls Burlington County, New Jersey home with his wife and three children.

Honors & Awards

•AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell
The Martindale Hubbell rated attorney list is issued by Internet Brands, Inc. 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

•'To Foresee or Not to Foresee? That is the Question for Determining Liability for Criminal Acts by Third Parties,' New Jersey Law Journal, October 22, 2018
•'Case Comment, Schoenvogel v. Venator Group Retail, Inc., 895 So.2d 225 (Ala. 2004),' Rutgers Law Journal, vol. 36, pgs. 1609-25, 2005
•'The Impact of Daubert on Forensic Science,' Pepperdine Law Review, vol. 31, pgs. 323-361, Co-Author, 2004
•'The Impact of Daubert on the Admissibility of Behavioral Science Testimony,' Pepperdine Law Review, vol. 30, pgs. 403-444, Co-Author, 2003

Classes / Seminars Taught

•Preparing A Claim for Trial, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, February 4, 2025

Results

Jury Defense Verdict Secured in a Case Involving Negligent Propane Services

We obtained a jury defense verdict in Cumberland County, New Jersey. We defended a major propane company where it was claimed that they provided negligent service to a stove which allegedly caused a trailer fire. The plaintiffs lost everything in the fire, including their pets. They also sustained serious and permanent burn injuries. Total medical bills were in excess of $1.5 million, and there was a $227,000 Medicare lien. The plaintiffs’ demand was $5 million. In less than two hours, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense.

Defense Clips Product Liability Lawsuit on Behalf of Nail Salon Owner

The defense prevailed on summary judgment for a nail salon owner against negligence and product liability claims by a plaintiff who slipped and fell off-site while still wearing pedicure slippers. The plaintiff had received a pedicure at our client’s nail salon. When she left the premises, she continued to wear the disposable pedicure slippers. The plaintiff then walked in the rain and eventually slipped and fell upon entering a retail store. The plaintiff brought general negligence and product liability claims against the nail salon’s owner. At the conclusion of discovery, the court granted our motion for summary judgment based upon the plaintiff’s admission that there was nothing wrong with the slippers and her failure to provide expert opinion as to the existence of any defect in the slippers.