New Jersey
951 Haddonfield Rd.
Suite A-2B
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Three Valley Square
Suite 220
Blue Bell, PA 19422
New York
404 5th Avenue
3rd Floor
New York, NY 10018
DC / Maryland
199 E. Montgomery Ave.
Suite 100
Rockville, MD 20850
4200 Regent Street
Suite 200
Columbus, Ohio 43219
12655 W. Jefferson Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Mark Rosenberg Mr. Rosenberg works in the Blue Bell, Pennsylvania office of Clark & Fox.

Mark's practice focuses on advising and representing clients from Lloyd’s of London and domestic insurers on reinsurance and insurance coverage, class action and bad faith matters. He assists insurers by providing coverage opinions, handling reinsurance arbitrations and audits, prosecuting and defending declaratory judgment actions, and defending insurers against claims for bad faith. He negotiates and litigates disputes involving reinsurance, and first- and third-party coverage matters ranging from property damage to complex personal accident and disability claims.

Mark has devoted his entire career to representing the insurance industry. He represents insurers in numerous jurisdictions throughout the U.S. and in alternative dispute forums, such as arbitrations and mediations.

Mark co-authored Extra-Contractual Litigation Against Insurers (Law Journal Press 2009), a treatise that provides a comprehensive view of numerous issues involved in litigating bad faith actions and other lawsuits seeking extra-contractual damages and assisted Lawyers for Civil Justice in preparing comments to the Civil Rules Advisory Committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference regarding proposed revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on electronic discovery.

Practice Areas

Representative Cases

  • Seiple v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 568 F. App’x 183 (3d Cir. June 12, 2014) — Primary role in developing arguments and drafting a successful appellate brief affirming the dismissal of a putative class action regarding the “stacking” of uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. The Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s holding that under Pennsylvania law, the issuance of an amended declarations page confirming the addition of a vehicle under a policy’s after-acquired-vehicle clause did not trigger an insurer’s duty to obtain a waiver of “stacked” UM/UIM coverage.
  • Seiple v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 954 F. Supp.2d 352 (E.D. Pa. 2013)— Primary role in developing arguments and drafting a successful motion to dismiss in the above-described case.
  • Jones v. Nationwide Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 613 Pa. 219, 32 A.3d 1261 (Pa. 2011) — Primary role in developing arguments and drafting a successful appellate brief in a putative class action. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that for automobile collision coverage, an insurer did not violate the law by reimbursing a policyholder’s deductible on a pro rata basis after obtaining a subrogation recovery.
  • Cumberland Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Express Products, Inc., Civ. Act. 08-2909, 2011 WL 4402275 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 22, 2011) — Major role in developing arguments and drafting a successful motion for summary judgment. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania confirmed that a liability insurer did not have the duty to indemnify a policyholder for the $8 million settlement of a class action regarding purported violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
  • Cumberland Mut. Fire. Ins. Co. v. Express Products, Inc., 529 F. App’x 245 (3d Cir. 2013) — Major role in developing arguments and drafting a successful appellate brief. In holding that the defendant’s appeal was untimely, the Third Circuit confirmed that the time for appeal begins to run upon the issuance of an order granting summary judgment, rather than the issuance of a subsequent memorandum.
  • Pace Communications Services Corp. v. Express Products, Inc., 18 N.E.3d 202 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2014) — Major role in developing arguments and drafting a successful appellate brief, in which the Illinois Appellate Court for the Second District confirmed that the above decision by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Cumberland Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Express Products) estopped the plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit from pursuing a subsequent action to recover the policy proceeds.
  • Ins. Fed’n of Pa., Inc. v. Com., Dep’t of Ins., 585 Pa. 630, 889 A.2d 550 (2005) — Primary role in drafting an amicus brief contending that the Pennsylvania Insurance Department did not have the authority to require arbitration of uninsured/underinsured motorist claims. This position was adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Representative Articles/Publications

Administrative Assistant

Shelley Crudele
PhoneDirect Dial +1 (856) 288-2406


Terri Ferrante
PhoneDirect Dial +1 (240) 790-9052
PhoneTelephone No. +1 (856) 347-4293 (ext.115)


  • University of Notre Dame - B.A., Government and English
  • Notre Dame Law School, J.D., 2000
    • Articles Editor, Notre Dame Law Review
    • Notre Dame Scholar