Lisa Maeyer is a member of the firm’s Casualty Department, where she focuses her practice on the defense of general liability matters including premises and automobile liability, in addition to assisting clients in matters involving insurance coverage, Personal Injury Protection (PIP) litigation, and Fraud/Special Investigation.
Lisa graduated cum laude from Gettysburg College with a B.A. in English and Writing, with honors, and a minor in Philosophy. Lisa earned her juris doctor from Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law in 2022, completing her J.D. with a litigation concentration. During law school, Lisa was a member and then executive director of the Moot Court Board.
Lisa clerked with the firm the summer of 2021 before her third year of law school, continued as a law graduate after graduating in 2022. She is admitted to practice in the state of Delaware.
Published Works
•'Delaware Supreme Court Examines Whether Liability Waiver Covers Injuries Based on Implied Agency Relationship,' The Legal Intelligencer, November 25, 2025
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Slip-and-Fall Case Based on Contradicted Plaintiff Testimony
April 1, 2026
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of a shopping center owner and its snow removal contractor, holding that a plaintiff cannot rely on self-contradictory testimony-especially when refuted by objective evidence-to survive summary judgment.In this case, the plaintiff alleged that he slipped on black ice in a parking lot and testified that snow, ice, and active plowing were present. The defendants presented maintenance records showing prior treatment, meteorological data confirming no precipitation after that treatment, and surveillance footage establishing that the lot was clear and dry with no snow removal activity at the time of the incident.Relying on Ridgeway v. Acme Markets, Inc., the court reiterated that defendants must take reasonable steps to address snow and ice, but once they present evidence of reasonable care, the burden shifts to the plaintiff. The court found that the defendants met that burden, while the plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact, relying only on inconsistent testimony directly contradicted by video evidence.This decision reinforces a strong path to summary judgment in winter slip-and-fall cases where defendants can pair documentation with objective evidence to negate alleged hazardous conditions.
Case Law Alerts
Delaware Court Allows Negligent Maintenance Claims Against Vehicle Lessor Despite Graves Amendment
January 1, 2026
The Delaware Superior Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss all claims against it, applying Delaware law to determine that wholesale dismissal of all claims was not warranted under the Graves Amendment because it does not absolve leasing companies of their own negligence.This suit was brought by the driver of a motor vehicle who was hit by a tractor trailer owned by New Horizons, leased by Western Express, Inc. and driven by a Western Express employee acting as its agent. The complaint alleged the tractor trailer driver’s negligence and the owner of the tractor trailer’s conduct are implicated both through agency and direct negligence theories, including negligent entrustment and provision of a defective vehicle.The lease between the defendant-owner and the plaintiff included language assigning maintenance duties to the defendant-owner. The court reasoned that, whether the defendant-owner in fact had performed maintenance to the tractor trailer, whether any breach occurred and whether such breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries were factual issues inappropriate for resolution on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.While the Graves Amendment preempts state-law vicarious liability claims against vehicle lessors where the lessor is engaged in the business of leasing and there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing by the lessor, when a lessor undertakes the responsibility of vehicle maintenance via the lease contract, claims for negligent maintenance present potential direct negligence claims outside Graves’ vicarious liability shield. Because the complaint pled direct negligence in addition to imputed liability and because the contours of the defendant-owner’s role and duties under the lease require factual development, dismissal of all claims against the defendant-owner is not warranted.The court allowed the theories of direct negligence to proceed and stated that the viability and scope of any vicarious liability would be addressed further as the litigation proceeded and the record is developed.
