- Email: Ryan.Michaleski@lewisbrisbois.com
- Phone: 215.977.4062
- Fax: 215.977.4101
Ryan Michaleski is a partner in the Philadelphia office of Lewis Brisbois and a member of the General Liability and Long Term Care and Elder Law Practices. Ryan is also a member of the 24/7 Rapid Response – On Call Transportation team. Ryan focuses his practice on advising insurers and healthcare providers in the defense of complex liability and high exposure cases. Ryan's ability to think critically and examine issues with efficiency and from multiple angles, as well as his specific attention to detail allows him to effectively defend his clients’ interests and keep them thoroughly advised throughout the litigation process.
Ryan has extensive experience defending insurers in complex general liability matters, including products liability, sexual abuse, premises liability and motor vehicle accident litigation. Ryan also has a depth of experience in the defense of long-term care and assisted living facilities. Ryan is a Certified Arbitrator for the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Ryan has served as a law clerk to the Honorable Charles A. Little of the Superior Court of New Jersey - Camden County, Civil Division. He is also a graduate of the International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy. In 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, Pennsylvania Super Lawyers named Ryan as a Rising Star in the area of General Insurance Defense, an honor reserved for only the top 2.5% of attorneys in Pennsylvania under the age of 40.
State Bar Admissions
- New Jersey
United States District Courts
- United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
- Pennsylvania Bar Association
- Philadelphia Bar Association
Awards & Honors
- Pennsylvania Super Lawyers - Rising Star 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 - General Insurance Defense
- Graduate of the International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy - 2009
Widener University School of Law - Delaware Campus
Juris Doctor, 2006
- Certificate of Achievement - Legal Methods I
- Certificate of Achievement - Professional Responsibility
- Lindsay Law Library Award - Excellence in Legal Research
Dual Bachelor of Arts, History and Politics, 2002
- Dean’s List
- Phi Alpha Theta National History Fraternity – Corresponding Secretary
- Parson’s Prize Scholarship Award – Outstanding Student of American History
- Honor Society – Politics Department
- 4 year varsity swimmer
- Obtained a judgment in favor of the firm’s client, a nationwide storage facility. The plaintiff alleged water damage to his property that was kept in a storage unit managed by our client. However, we were able to prove that the rental contract the plaintiff signed and agreed to with our client precluded him from recovering for any property damage unless it was caused by the facility’s intentional or reckless conduct. The plaintiff was unable to prove any such conduct by our client, and judgment was entered in our client’s favor. The plaintiff did not appeal the judgment.
- Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a psychologist and her practice in a medical malpractice action. The plaintiff and his wife participated in couples counseling at the defendant psychology practice, receiving counseling with the co-defendant, an independent contractor of the practice. During the time that they received couples counseling, the plaintiff’s wife filed a federal lawsuit against her former employer. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that during his wife’s lawsuit, the co-defendant provided records relating to his treatment with her without his consent in response to a valid court-ordered subpoena issued to the practice requesting his wife’s treatment records. We filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss all claims against our clients for a number of reasons, including the plaintiff’s failure to meet his burden of proving damages against our clients. As the plaintiff refused to move off his $1 million demand despite being advised by multiple neutral court-appointed mediators that the case had a value of less than 10 percent of the demand, the trial in the case was scheduled to commence. The court granted summary judgment a week before jury selection. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof that he sustained any damages as a result of the production of the records and dismissed all claims against the psychologist and her practice with prejudice.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of his client, who was a guest at a party. The plaintiff sustained significant personal injuries as a result of an assault at the party that both he and our client were attending. We were able to prove that our client owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, and the court granted summary judgment a month before jury selection and dismissed all claims against his client, with prejudice. The plaintiff had demanded our client’s policy limits to resolve the case.
Successfully resolved a multi-year insurance coverage action involving a business auto policy issued by ACE American Insurance Company to a national defense contractor. A former employee of the contractor was involved in a car crash in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs sued, seeking $1 million in damages. The coverage action was complicated by the fact that the plaintiffs failed to sue the employer before the statute of limitations ran, leaving the former employee as the only defendant. Coverage centered on whether the former employee was a permissive user of the rental vehicle she was in at the time of the crash.
Successfully resolved a federal court lawsuit involving a fatal motorcycle accident. Our client’s employee made a left turn out of a parking lot into the lane of travel when the decedent, who was operating a motorcycle and had the right of way, impacted the side of the vehicle. The decedent died immediately at the scene. The damages were significant in this case, and the plaintiff’s demand was in the eight-figures and in excess of policy limits. Punitive damages were also alleged. The case was resolved two weeks before trial for a fraction of the demand. The settlement was less than the settlement value placed on the case by the mediator and magistrate judge.