Todd J. Leon

As Co-Chair of the firm’s Insurance Services Practice, Todd leads the group’s efforts throughout the Northeast, guiding strategy, as well as handling and overseeing matters involving insurance coverage, extra-contractual exposure, and bad faith litigation. In his role, Todd also drives key initiatives, supports practice development, and ensures the group delivers comprehensive, results-driven representation to insurers facing complex coverage disputes and high stakes bad faith claims. With nearly three decades of extensive experience, Todd has litigated a wide variety of claims at the trial and appellate levels of both the state and federal courts. Admitted to practice in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey, he splits his time between our Philadelphia and Mount Laurel offices.

Todd is particularly experienced in managing cases that involve sophisticated 'risk shifting' issues, including both additional insurance coverage and contractual indemnification. He has worked on a wide array of insurance coverage matters, spanning a broad base of first- and third-party claims and policy types. Todd has counseled insurers, third-party administrators and self-insureds throughout the life cycle of a matter, from the drafting of policy language to pre-suit investigation to the drafting of coverage opinions to litigating matters through the trial and appellate courts.

Todd lives with his wife, two children, pug (Lola) and French Bulldog (Beau) in Bucks County, PA. In his spare time, he is an avid fan of Philadelphia's professional sports teams and Rutgers basketball and football, and he plays in a modified fast-pitch, wood bat softball league. Todd is active in his synagogue, Shir Ami in Bucks County, and is a former member of its Board of Directors.

Honors & Awards

•New Jersey Law Journal's New Leaders of the Bar (2013)
•New Jersey Super Lawyers Rising Stars (2009-2013)
The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. 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.

Classes & Seminars Taught

•DeMarco v. Stoddard - A Behind the Scenes Look at the Decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on Fraud in the Application for a Medical Malpractice Insurance Policy, National Academy of Continuing Legal Education, April 2016
•Shifting the Risk: Tips and Tools for Transferring Liabilities Via Indemnification Agreements and Insurance Procurement Obligations of Indemnitors, New Jersey Law Journal In-House CLE Seminar, November 2012

Published Works

•' State Of Insurance: Q1 Notes From Pennsylvania ' Law360, April 28, 2026
•'State of Insurance: Q4 Notes From Pennsylvania,' Law360, January 27, 2026
•'State Of Insurance: Q3 Notes From Pennsylvania,' Law360, October 30, 2025
•'Choice of Law in Coverage Disputes: What Happens When the Policy, the Loss and the Parties Span State Lines?' The Legal Intelligencer's Insurance Law Supplement, August 19, 2025
•'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
•'NJ Justices Clarify First-Party Indemnification Availability,' Law360, June 27, 2024
•'Third Circuit Holds That Commercial Property Policies Do Not Provide Coverage for Businesses' Covid-19 Closure Claims,' Marshall Dennehey Legal Update for Insurance Services, January 9, 2023
•“In Twin Decisions on Insurance Coverage for COVID-19 Closure Claims, Superior Court of Pennsylvania Makes Clear that Policy Language Matters,” Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022
•Contributing Author, Defense Research Institute Insurance Law Committee's Coverage B: Personal and Advertising Injury Compendium, 'Chapter 14: Advertisement Offenses - Use of Another's Advertising Idea in Your Advertisement' (definition f.)

Results

Summary Judgment for Insurer in UIM Recovery Case

We prevailed on a motion for summary judgment with respect to the applicability of a UIM “step down” clause. Following an accident with an underinsured tortfeasor, the underlying plaintiff sought UIM recovery under three policies, including one issued by our client with limits of $500,000. The defense successfully argued that our client’s UIM limits of $500,000 “stepped down” to the $100,000 UIM limits of the plaintiff’s own policy, pursuant to our client’s policy language. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, granted our motion.

Thought Leadership

Law360

Law360 - State Of Insurance Q1 Notes From Pennsylvania

April 28, 2026

The first quarter of 2026 has already featured several noteworthy insurance opinions in Pennsylvania, addressing recurring but unsettled legal questions with significant practical consequences.From causation standards in first-party property claims, to the scope of statutory bad faith liability, to the enforceability of arbitration provisions in uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist disputes, these cases illustrate how Pennsylvania courts continue to refine the boundaries of coverage and dispute resolution. Collectively, they provide important guidance to insurers, policyholders and practitioners navigating an evolving legal landscape.

Legal Update for Cannabis Law

Marijuana Reclassified: Preliminary Impacts on Homeowners Coverage Issues

April 27, 2026

On April 23, 2026, the United States Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration announced an order reclassifying certain marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. This move represents the most significant shift in federal cannabis policy in decades. While much of the public discussion thus far has focused on the tax and criminal implications of the change, there are more nuanced questions for insurers - particularly in the context of homeowners policies and the enforceability of exclusions for “controlled dangerous substances.”The Regulatory ShiftFor decades, marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. That classification, on a tier reserved for substances with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, aligned marijuana with substances like heroin, LSD and peyote. The April 2026 order altered that framework by recognizing that FDA-approved products containing marijuana and marijuana products regulated by a state medical marijuana license will be reclassified in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. This move indicates at least some level of federal recognition that state-licensed marijuana has accepted medical uses and a lower potential for abuse. Importantly, the change is limited. The reclassification does not federally legalize marijuana, and recreational cannabis generally remains a Schedule I substance. This bifurcated treatment of medical versus recreational marijuana use will likely become central to future discussions, including insurance coverage litigation.Implications for Homeowners PoliciesMost standard homeowners policies contain exclusions for losses “arising out of” the use, sale, manufacture, delivery, transfer or possession of controlled substances, as defined by the Federal act. Notably, the standard “controlled substances” exclusion in policies specifically references cocaine, LSD, marijuana and narcotic drugs.The rescheduling of marijuana to Schedule III raises the key question of how or whether the “controlled substances” exclusion will continue to apply. At this point, the answer to this question appears to be that the provision will continue to preclude coverage for losses arising out of marijuana claims, since Schedule III substances remain “controlled substances” under federal law and marijuana remains listed, by name, in the exclusion. To be clear, the reclassification does not remove marijuana from the statutory framework; it merely places marijuana in a less restrictive category of the Controlled Substances Act.Moving forward, insurers will likely argue that the plain language of the exclusion means that the provision continues to apply. For their part, policyholders may begin to push back on that interpretation, particularly in jurisdictions like Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where legalized cannabis regimes are well-established. The argument will be that conduct authorized by state law, and now partially recognized at the federal level, should not trigger exclusions designed to address criminal or inherently hazardous activity. Ultimately, any coverage disputes will likely turn on traditional principles of policy interpretation: plain meaning, ambiguity, and the reasonable expectations of the insured. Courts in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, both of which have robust bodies of insurance coverage law, will play an important role in shaping how these disputes are resolved.ConclusionThe move of FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana and medicinal marijuana products subject to a qualifying state-issued license to Schedule III is an important step in federal drug policy, but its immediate impact on homeowners insurance is limited. Simply put, marijuana remains a controlled substance, such that standard exclusions to homeowners policies should continue to apply. Moving forward, the most significant effects of the change in classification will emerge in close cases, particularly in states like New Jersey where recreational and medical marijuana is legal (at least to some degree) under state law. For now, the change creates more questions than answers. Those questions, which are likely to be centered on policy language, legality, and causation, are likely to shape the next wave of coverage litigation in this area.