Emily S. Knepper

Emily is an associate in the Casualty Department and focuses her practice on asbestos and mass tort litigation, general liability and automobile liability.

Emily earned her juris doctor from Delaware Law School, where she was a member of Phi Alpha Delta International Law Fraternity and Women's Law Caucus. Emily also served as Head Student Representative for Kaplan Bar Review. Prior to law school, Emily graduated from The University of Delaware, where she majored in Criminal Justice and minored in Psychology and Sociology. During her time in college, Emily was an active member of the Student Alumni Ambassadors, an organization which fosters connections between students and alumni and promotes school spirit.

Outside of the office, Emily enjoys spending time with family and friends, outdoor activities, and theater. As a Delaware native, Emily is an active member of Profundo Bono, Inc., a Delaware theater group comprised entirely of legal professionals. Profundo Bono produces bi-annual comedy musicals to raise funds to support the Combined Campaign for Justice, which enables Delaware’s three legal services agencies-Community Legal Aid Society, Inc., Delaware Volunteer Legal Services, Inc., and Legal Services Corporation of Delaware, Inc.-to continue to provide legal services to low-income Delaware families in need of assistance.

Emily is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Thought Leadership

Case Law Alerts

Triable Issue of Fact Raised Under Insurance Law 5102(d) Overturns Motion for Summary Judgment

April 1, 2026

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appealed from an order of the Kings County Supreme Court. The order granted the defendant, Salvatore Fasino's, motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident. The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing prima facie that the alleged injury to the cervical region of the plaintiff's spine did not constitute a serious injury under the significant limitation of use category of Insurance Law 5102(d) (see Staff v. Yshua, 59 A.D.3d 614, 874 N.Y.S.2d 180).In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury to the cervical region of her spine under the significant limitation of use category of Insurance Law 5102(d) (see Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424). As such, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102(d) as a result of the accident.

Case Law Alerts

Claim for Bad Faith Against Insurance Company Dismissed When a Reasonable Basis for Denying Payment Exists

April 1, 2026

On March 15, 2025, Sekle Wisseh was struck and injured by another car while at a red light in Philadelphia. He sought insurance benefits from his carrier, Progressive Direct Insurance Company. Progressive purportedly delayed and denied payment without a reasonable basis. Acting pro se, Wisseh sued Progressive on December 10, 2025, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Progressive removed the case to federal court, and Wisseh filed an amended complaint, asserting claims for breach of contract, bad faith, abuse of process, and declaratory relief. Progressive moved to dismiss all claims, but the breach of contract claim, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and Wisseh responded in opposition.The court granted the motion and dismissed the bad faith and abuse of process claims without prejudice and the declaratory relief claim with prejudice. Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute provides a court may award interest, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees if it “finds that the insurer has acted in bad faith toward the insured.” 42 Pa. Stat. & Cons. Stat. Ann. 8371. Courts have defined “bad faith” as “any frivolous or unfounded refusal to pay proceeds of a policy.” Keefe v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 203 F.3d 218, 225 (3d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).To recover on a bad faith claim, a claimant is required to show by clear and convincing evidence: “(1) that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and (2) that the insurer knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis in denying the claim.” Rancosky v. Wash. Nat'l Ins., 170 A.3d 364, 377 (Pa. 2017); see also Post v. St. Paul Travelers Ins., 691 F.3d 500, 522 (3d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Wisseh alleged Progressive “acted in bad faith by delaying and denying payment with a reasonable basis.” Progressive purportedly continued with that conduct after suit was filed, but those assertions allege no facts about why Progressive lacked a reasonable basis for denying Wisseh benefits and how it did so knowingly or recklessly. As such, the court found the bad faith claim was properly dismissed.