Gregory J. Kelley

Gregory concentrates the majority of his practice defending matters regarding architects and engineers, construction defect litigation and construction accidents. As well, he maintains a smaller portion of his practice in the defense of product liability claims. He splits his time between our King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and Mount Laurel, New Jersey, offices.

Formerly a litigation specialist for a large casualty insurer in Pennsylvania and Delaware, Gregory was responsible for and developed experience in the evaluation, negotiation and defense strategy for catastrophic personal injury and property damage claims. He also served as an instructor for in-house claims professional seminars on topics of Case Evaluation & Negotiation and Insurance Coverage.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey in 2004, Gregory was with a defense firm where his practice involved defending personal injury and property damage matters, focusing on architect and engineer professional liability and construction claims, products, general, premises liability claims and insurance coverage matters.

In 1982, Gregory graduated from Villanova University with a Bachelor of Science degree. While working as an insurance claims professional, he earned his juris doctor from Widener University School of Law in 1992 and is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Honors & Awards

•AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell
•The Best Lawyers in America, Litigation - Construction (2024-2026)
•The Best Lawyers in America, Construction Law (2026)

Classes/Seminars Taught

•Liability Concerns for Architects, Engineers and Construction Professionals: Pennsylvania Architects, Engineering & Construction Defect Issues, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, July 2015

Published Works

•“Stating a Claim for Negligent Misrepresentation for a Design Professional’s Supply of Information,” Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 2. June 2016
•Case Law Alerts, Regular Contributor, 2010-present
•“The Federal Courts Require Complaints To State A Factually 'Plausible' Claim, And Factually 'Conceivable' (Speculative) Claims May Be Dismissed In The Pleadings Stage,” Defense Digest, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2008
•“New Jersey: Parental Immunity For 'Negligent' Failure To Supervise Claim Calls For Case-By-Case Analysis Of Defense Strategy, Liability Evaluation And Coverage Determinations,” Defense Digest, Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2006

Certification

•OSHA 10-Hour Construction Certification

Results

Successfully Defended Architect in Construction Defect Matter

We successfully defended an architect against a $7 million claim brought by a general contractor in connection with the renovation of a historic, city-block-sized building in Philadelphia. The contractor alleged design errors and sought additional damages under the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, inflating its claim to $16 million. During contentious discovery, we exposed contradictions and falsehoods in the contractor’s testimony, leading to a partial summary judgment that dismissed the bulk of claims against our client. Facing a looming trial and a remaining $4 million claim, we worked with the building owner’s counsel to convince the settlement judge of the claims’ lack of merit. The plaintiff filed for bankruptcy, and the final settlement had to be approved in the Bankruptcy Court. The case settled for just $362,500, with our client paying only $181,250-an outstanding result in a high-stakes dispute.

Six-Figure Claim Against Lighting Designer Dismissed

We obtained dismissal of a six-figure claim in Philadelphia County via preliminary objections. The plaintiff homeowner sued a lighting designer for breach of contract, negligence for $23k in remediation costs, statutory remedies for treble damages and legal fees. The plaintiff alleged the lighting designer was a home improvement contractor who violated the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA) and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The plaintiff omitted pertinent facts from the complaint. Using judicial notice, we presented facts from public records to show that the design services were performed in the construction of a new home. We argued that HICPA does not apply to new construction and that the gist of the action doctrine barred the contract claim. The court agreed, dismissed the statutory and contract claims, and remanded the $23k negligence claim to Common Pleas Court arbitration.

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