Dana A. Gittleman

When professionals are faced with claims and lawsuits alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and more, Dana provides a vigorous response and defense. As a member of the Professional Liability Department, she routinely defends claims and lawsuits brought against insurance agents and brokers, attorneys, financial entities, large product manufacturers, lenders, directors and officers and other professionals.

Dana also serves as Chair of the firm's Real Estate E&O Liability Practice Group where she provides legal defense for real estate agents, real estate brokers, title agents, home inspectors, appraisers and mortgage brokers in cases brought against them.

Dana understands the disruption and angst professionals experience when claims are brought against them. With over 10 years of civil litigation experience, she approaches each matter with empathy and a strong determination to efficiently resolve the actions brought against her clients. A typical day in her practice might involve securing court dismissals on dispositive motions, mitigating risk via alternative dispute resolution, or collaborating with clients on defense strategy for swift case resolution.

Committed to mentorship and providing guidance to younger attorneys, Dana is also Chair of the firm's Executive Committee Advisory Council, a distinguished group of firm leaders whose purpose is to enhance the communication between the Executive Committee and younger members of the firm's professional ranks, including associates, special counsel and junior shareholders.

Dana is a member of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS) and serves on the PLUS Mid-Atlantic Chapter Steering Committee. She frequently contributes articles to PLUS Blog. She is also an active member of the Professional Liability Defense Federation (PLDF) Insurance Law Committee, as well as the Philadelphia Bar Association having previously served on its Young Lawyers Division Executive Committee. She has been recognized by the Best Lawyers organization as a Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch since 2021, and she has been selected a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star since 2019.

A graduate of Emory University, she received her juris doctor from the Villanova University School of Law where she was a Dean's Merit Scholarship recipient. While at Villanova, Dana served as a managing editor for student work for the Villanova Sports & Entertainment Law Journal.

Honors & Awards

•The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch, Insurance Law; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants (2021-2025)
•Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2019-2022)

Classes/Seminars Taught

•Developing Your Own Brand, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, March 16, 2026
•PLUS Podcast: Insurance Agent E&O - Top Ten Tips for Risk Management Series, Episode 3, October 13, 2025
•PLUS Podcast: Insurance Agent E&O - Top Ten Tips for Risk Management Series, Episode 2, August 7, 2025
•PLUS Podcast: Insurance Agent E&O - Top Ten Tips for Risk Management Series, Episode 1, June 9, 2025
•Insurance Agent and Broker Webinar, Philadelphia Insurance Company, April 1, 2025
•Defending Home Inspector Claims - Prevention and Defense, Client Webinar, October 15, 2024
•Risk Management for Insurance Agents & Brokers, Pittsburgh I-Day, October 8, 2024
•Attorney Well-Being as a Matter of Professional Competence, Professional Liability Defense Federation Annual Meeting, September 26, 2024
•Insurance E&O Litigation Trends and Best Practices, Client Seminar, May 7, 2024
•Defending Home Inspector Claims - Prevention and Defense, Client Webinar, March 26, 2024
•Defending Home Inspectors Claims - Prevention and Defense, Client Webinar, March 6, 2023
•You Passed the Bar, Now What? How to Succeed in Your First Year as an Attorney, and How to Gain Experience, Philadelphia Bar Association Young Lawyers Division Bootcamp, October 28, 2016

Published Works

•'Pennsylvania Superior Court Rejects Breach of Oral Contract Claim Against Insurance Agent,' PLUS Blog, January 26, 2026
•'Pennsylvania Supreme Court Strengthens Legal Protections for Home Inspectors,' PLUS Blog, October 28, 2025
•'Avoiding Pitfalls in E&O Claims: Insights From Episode 2 of Insurance Agent E&O,' PLUS Blog, September 8, 2025
•'Navigating the Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations: A Liability Risk for Insurance Agents,' PLUS Blog, July 28, 2025
•'Statute of Limitations Stands: Pennsylvania Court Affirms Dismissal of Breach of Contract Claim Against Insurance Broker,' PLUS Blog, March 4, 2025
•'Attorney Well-Being Doesn’t Have to Be Spooky: Steps Attorneys Can Take to Support Mental, Emotional and Physical Health,' PLUS Blog, October 29, 2024
•'Insurance Agent Skorrs Victory in New Jersey’s Appellate Division,' PLUS Blog, July 16, 2024
•'Insurance Agents And Brokers Get No Summer Vacation From Risk Management,' PLUS Blog, June 27, 2024
•'Pennsylvania Strengthens Application of One-Year Statute of Repose Under Pennsylvania Home Inspection Law,' PLUS Blog, April 30, 2024
•'Words Matter: Shielding Against UTPCPL Claims With Subjective Verbiage,' PLUS Blog, March 14, 2024
•'Trying the PL Case: Lessons Learned in the Courtroom,' PLUS Blog, September 21, 2023
•'4 Terms to Avoid When Advertising Your Insurance Agency,' Independent Agent magazine, February 8, 2023
•'Discovery Rule Still Rules in Legal Malpractice Actions,' PLUS Blog, January 12, 2023
•'The Importance of Memorializing Insurance Discussions,' PLUS Blog, July 11, 2022
•'Palek v. State Farm Offers Lessons for Agents,' Insurance Agents & Brokers Newsletter, February 23, 2022
•'Another Insurance Broker Dismissed From a COVID-19 Related Suit,' PLUS Blog, February 2, 2022
•'Pennsylvania Federal Court Takes a Bite Out of Restaurant’s COVID/Business Interruption Coverage Claims Against Insurance Broker,' PLUS Blog, October 11, 2021
•“Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts a ‘Strict Liability’ Standard for UTPCPL ‘Catch-All’ Claims,” Defense Digest, June 2021, Vol. 27, No. 3
•“‘Loose Lips Sink Ships’...But Not If Judicially Privileged: Protecting Attorney Pre-Litigation Communications,” Defense Digest, Vol. 26, No. 1, March 2020
•'Pandemonium in the Time of Pandemic: Potential Shift in Insurance Agent and Broker Standard of Care in the Wake of Covid-19,' The Voice, DRI Newsletter, June 10, 2020
•'Top 10 Immediate Considerations for Claims Handling,' PLUS Blog, May 18, 2020
•'Utilizing Your Alumni Network for Personal Development,' The Legal Intelligencer, May 14, 2015
•Case Law Alerts, regular contributor, 2013-present
•Home Field Advantage: Determining the Appropriate 'Turf' for Williams v. National Football League and Clarifying Preemption Precedent, 19 Vill. Sports & Ent. L.J. 203 (2012)

Results

Montgomery County Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Insurance Broker

We obtained dismissal of our insurance broker client on Motion for Summary Judgment in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, on the basis of no duty breached, and lack of causation. Claimants asserted a professional negligence theory for allegedly allowing a commercial insurance policy to lapse, failing to notify the policyholder claimant of the lapse or cancellation, and allowing a subsequent gap in coverage to exist after the policy cancelled, when an underlying loss occurred. However, after completed discovery depositions and expert discovery, we successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing the policy cancelled because of the policyholder’s own failure to comply with premium audit requirements, rather than any liability or breach of standard of care by the insurance broker.

MD Successfully Defends Low Verdict Against Insurance Broker that Plaintiff Challenged on Appeal

In a case where an insurance broker faced claims of professional negligence, Carol VanderWoude (Philadelphia) successfully defended the plaintiff’s appeal from a verdict obtained by Tim Ventura and Dana Gittleman (Philadelphia). The verdict against our client, an independent insurance broker, was well below the lost value of UIM coverage (i.e., $1 million), which the plaintiff sought to recover based on an alleged breach of the professional standard of care in failing to procure an endorsement for $ 1 million in UIM coverage on the plaintiff’s decedent’s commercial auto policy. The verdict is notable because, at trial, the client gave unexpected testimony which impacted liability, and when confronted with the client’s new trial testimony, our standard of care expert conceded a breach of the professional standard of care. Still, causation/damages were contested, and it was disputed at trial that the plaintiff’s decedent would have actually received $1 million in coverage. Tim elicited testimony on cross-examination of the plaintiff’s expert to show that there was no evidence establishing the insurer would have provided additional UIM coverage even if the endorsement had been purchased. Prior to trial the parties entered into a stipulation stating that damages were capped at the value of the lost coverage, $1 million. Plaintiff’s counsel challenged the low verdict on various grounds, focusing on the fact that our expert conceded a breach of a standard of care based on the client’s unexpected trial testimony. He argued that, as a matter of law, the damages amount was the lost value of the coverage and the verdict should be increased to $1 million. The trial court agreed with our arguments, raised in opposition to the plaintiff’s post-trial motions, that the low verdict amount was supported by the record and that the plaintiff’s requests for post-trial relief were otherwise waived for various reasons. The Superior Court affirmed in a unanimous decision.

Thought Leadership

PLUS Blog

The Importance of Memorializing Settlement Terms

April 27, 2026

Settlement discussions often move quickly, and parties may assume that agreement on a dollar amount is enough to finalize a deal. But when material terms are left unspoken or undocumented, even routine negotiations can lead to costly and time-consuming motion practice.

PLUS Blog

Pennsylvania Superior Court Rejects Breach of Oral Contract Claim Against Insurance Agent

January 26, 2026

While the majority of claims against insurance agents and brokers sound in tort, creative attorneys attempting to combat a two-year statute of limitations on tort claims or the affirmative defense of contributory negligence, may also plead a breach of oral contract claim. In Pennsylvania, contract claims have a four-year statute of limitations and are not barred by the doctrine of contributory negligence. Insureds’ counsel therefore have an incentive to try to plead tort and contract claims, both procedurally and substantively.