×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

Marshall DenneheyShare Holder
David D. Blake
Pro

David D. Blake

Not yet reviewed

15000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 200, P.O. Box 5429, Mount Laurel, NJ 08054

Insurance Services - Coverage and Bad Faith Litigation, Insurance Agents & Brokers Liability and Litigation

About David D. Blake

David is a member of the firm's Professional Liability Department and devotes his practice largely to insurance coverage, bad faith litigation, and the defense of insurance agents/brokers. His experience with insurance coverage matters include all lines of business including first party property, commercial liability and specialty lines policies. David provides consultation services to insurers and self-insured clients covering all aspects of New Jersey claims handling practices. Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, David was assistant solicitor for the City of Pleasantville, New Jersey, City of Absecon, New Jersey, Northfield, New Jersey and special counsel to the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA), as well as assistant planning board attorney for Galloway Township, New Jersey.

David is a 1990 graduate of Rutgers University (NCAS) and received his juris doctor from Claude W. Pettit College of Law at Ohio Northern University in 1994. While in law school, David received the American Jurisprudence Awards for Excellence in the study of Insurance Law, Trusts & Estates and Secured Transactions as well as making the Dean’s List.

Honors & awards

The Best Lawyers in America , Litigation - Insurance
2023-2026

The Best Lawyers list is issued by Woodward & White. 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.

Year joined

2009

Results

Successfully Overturned $1.8 Million Judgment on Appeal in New Jersey

Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice
Insurance Services - Coverage & Bad Faith Litigation
July 11, 2025

We successfully overturned a $1.8 million judgment on appeal in a case that involved the Laidlow exclusion in a workers’ compensation/employers liability policy. The decedent succumbed to heat exhaustion while at work, and the plaintiff alleged the death was due to working conditions the employer knew were substantially certain to lead to injury. Our client, the insurer, offered to defend the employer, but only to the extent of obtaining dismissal of the workers’ compensation claim, which was filed in the wrong forum.

Defense Verdict Secured in Contentious Fire Loss Case

Insurance Services - Coverage & Bad Faith Litigation
March 22, 2024

We obtained a hard fought defense verdict in a contentious case involving a total fire loss at a duplex owned by a single mother. The investigation revealed that the named insured did not reside in the home and, instead, rented the two units. The claim denial included application misrepresentations and issues related to the fact that the insured property did not meet the policy’s definition of a “residence premises.” Ultimately, the court decided that the property did meet the “residence premises” definition.

Thought Leadership

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
Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 98 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2026 editions of The Best Lawyers in America and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S.

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

Mount Laurel
Insurance Services - Coverage & Bad Faith Litigation
Workers' Compensation
April 7, 2025

New Jersey Supreme Court Decides Laidlow Exclusion Is Valid

Mount Laurel
Workers' Compensation
Employment Law
Insurance Services - Coverage & Bad Faith Litigation
December 20, 2024
Rodriguez v. Shelbourne Spring, LLC, A-2079-22, December 12, 2024 New Jersey Legal Update - December 20, 2024,

New Jersey Legislature Passes Bad Faith - What’s Next

Mount Laurel
Insurance Services - Coverage & Bad Faith Litigation
January 14, 2022
New Jersey is on the brink of its first insurance bad faith statute after clearing both the Senate and Assembly by vote on January 10, 2022. Legal Updates for Insurance Services - January 14, 2022, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin.

New Jersey Auto Insurers, Get Ready for First-Party Bad Faith!!!

Mount Laurel
Insurance Services - Coverage & Bad Faith Litigation
Automobile Liability
February 1, 2021
New Jersey is poised to pass its first-party bad faith statute. After passing the Senate on Friday 21-9, it only needs to pass the Assembly. Legal Update for Insurance Services - February 1, 2021, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin.

Presentations

Bad Faith and Fair Dealing in New Jersey, client seminar, May 26, 2021

 

David D. Blake (Mount Laurel, New Jersey) View website

Reviews for David D.

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Litigation
  • Other 2
    • Insurance Services - Coverage and Bad Faith Litigation
    • Insurance Agents & Brokers Liability

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Shareholder
    Firm Name
    Marshall Dennehey
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Representative Cases: Warren & Maryann Andrews v. Merchants Mutual Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89997
    Reina v. Twp. of Union, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103406 (D.N.J. July 24, 2013)
    Kouveliotes v. USCC Cas. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148373 (D.N.J. Oct. 16, 2012)
    Klama v. Zuniga-Eliz
    o et al., DOCKET NO. A-1382-09T2, 2011 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 653 (App. Div. 2011)
    D.E. v. N. Hunterdon-Voorhees Reg'l High Sch. Dist., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45121 (D.N.J. June 20, 2007)
    South Jersey Family Med. Ctr. v. City of Pleasantville, 176 N.J. 184 (N.J. 2003)
    Moore v. Acme Corrugated Box Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9897 (E.D. Pa. July 6, 1998)
    Boody v. Township of Cherry Hill et. al, 997 F. Supp. 562 (D.N.J. 1997)








    Published Works: '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
    'State Of The Occurrence,' Defense Digest, 2012-06, Vol. 18, No. 2
  • Additional Links
    http://marshalldennehey.com

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    1995, New Jersey
    1996, U.S. District Court District of New Jersey
    Memberships

    Associations & memberships

    Camden County Bar Association
    New Jersey State Bar Association, Insurance Section

  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law
    Class of 1994
    J.D.
    Other Education
    Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
    Class of 1990
    B.A.

Contact David D. Blake

Share Holder at Marshall Dennehey
Not yet reviewed

15000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 200P.O. Box 5429Mount Laurel, NJ 08054U.S.A.

Show on map
Fax: (856) 414-6077

Activity

Legal Community Contributions

Email David D. Blake

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message:
Return to Profile Reset Form

Attorneys FAQs

  • What year was this attorney first admitted to the bar?
    David D. Blake was admitted in 1995 to the State of New Jersey.
  • Is this attorney admitted to practice in any U.S. Federal Courts?
    David D. Blake is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  • What law school did this attorney attend?
    David D. Blake attended Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law.
  • What year was this attorney's law firm established?
    Marshall Dennehey was established in 1962.

Attorney information displayed in this FAQ section is based upon information the lawyer has included on their profile, in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals.

These FAQs include information about a lawyer's background, but do not evaluate their knowledge of the law, past performance on individual cases, personality, or communication skills.

It is solely the responsibility of lawyers and law firms to ensure that any information they provide complies with all applicable laws and rules of professional conduct.

You should be aware that the information we rely upon may not be comprehensive, or frequently updated.

Always research the lawyer further to get a better understanding of their license credentials, disciplinary status, background, and experience.

Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions