Download vCard

Tiffany Alexander


Tiffany’s experience and training in business management enables her to provide exceptional service and counsel to her clients, both in and out of the courtroom. Before beginning her legal career dedicated to the litigation of complex, high stakes cases, Tiffany earned her law degree at night while working as a fixed operations manager for an automobile dealership in Burlington, New Jersey. This pre-law business and management experience gives her a unique perspective and in-depth insight into the automotive industry, and enables her to provide her clients with a comprehensive approach to litigation. Tiffany understands that every client has a unique business model and works closely with her clients to develop global strategies to achieve the best outcome possible.

Tiffany focuses her trial practice on the defense of manufacturers in complex, product liability and personal injury matters. She has successfully litigated a number of catastrophic injury cases in which a wide variety of products were alleged to have been defectively or negligently designed, including automobiles, forklifts, track loaders, motorcycles, farming equipment, fireplace inserts and construction materials as well as component parts, such as helmets and seat belts. For over 15 years, Ms. Alexander has focused on and become a nationally recognized specialist in automotive products and heavy equipment defense.

Representative Matters

Ms. Alexander has provided winning litigation defense for leading automotive and heavy equipment manufacturers involving differing aspects of product liability including crashworthiness and rollover cases, defective door latch, airbag, parking brake system and forklift claims, including lack of safety features on heavy equipment.

For example,

Plaintiffs v. Auto Manufacturer — Ms. Alexander obtained a full defense verdict in a wrongful death and personal injury crashworthiness case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs alleged that they sustained enhanced injuries in a frontal crash as  result of the failure of the rear seatbelts, which caused the rear occupants to forcefully load their seatbacks. Plaintiffs’ liability expert opined that both of the rear seat occupants were wearing their seatbelts, yet they both failed simultaneously in the crash, and ineffectively restrained them. The defense experts testified that the rear seat restraints, which were state of the art and equipped with dual locking retractors, were safely and properly designed and did not fail in this crash. Moreover, the physical evidence demonstrated that the rear occupants were not wearing their seatbelts.  After five days of trial, the jury deliberated for just 30 minutes and returned a verdict for the defense.


Plaintiffs v. Auto Manufacturer — Ms. Alexander obtained a full defense verdict in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas in a crashworthiness case involving a door latch defect allegation on an SUV. The plaintiff claimed that she was ejected from the left rear seat due to a defective door latch, which she alleged opened following an impact with an oncoming vehicle, resulting in a shattered right eye socket, and a fracture of her C7 vertebrae. Plaintiff’s expert opined that the left rear door latch failed when the vehicle spun after impact, and had it remained intact, plaintiff would not have been ejected, nor would she have sustained any serious injuries. Defense experts demonstrated that based on the physical evidence on the door frame and the latch itself, it stayed latched throughout the event, and plaintiff was in fact ejected through the left rear window after the glass was shattered by the initial impact. Following a two-day trial and 40 minutes of deliberations, the jury returned a full defense verdict.


Plaintiff v. Auto Manufacturer — Ms. Alexander obtained a full dismissal in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania in a products liability case involving heavy-duty truck. Plaintiff purchased the vehicle new from a third party and contracted with a vehicle modifier to make significant modifications, including the installation of an after-market hydraulic system. Plaintiff asserted negligence and strict liability claims against the defendants, alleging that a vehicle fire occurred due to the hydraulic system. Focusing on an unrelated recall, the vehicle modifier joined the manufacturer.  The Defense argued that the asserted Recall was not applicable to the subject vehicle, and that the fire was clearly caused by the aftermarket hydraulic components designed, manufactured, and installed by modifier.  On the morning of trial, all claims and cross-claims were dismissed.


Plaintiff v. Auto Manufacturer —  Ms. Alexander obtained summary judgment on behalf of an auto manufacturer in Passaic County, New Jersey, in a crashworthiness case involving allegations of airbag and seatbelt defect. Plaintiff claimed that she was injured when the airbag deployed following a frontal crash. Discovery revealed that the vehicle had been disposed of prior to suit, and there was no evidence of seatbelt or airbag failure proven. The court found there was no factual or expert evidence to establish a prima facie case of defect in the vehicle, and dismissed all claims.


Plaintiff v. Equipment Manufacturer — Ms. Alexander obtained a dismissal of all claims following a pre-trial risk-utility hearing in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in a personal injury case involving allegations of product defect and failure to warn. The court determined, after a two-day hearing, that the plaintiff’s expert’s methodology and opinions were not sufficient to meet the Frye standard, and precluded the expert from testifying at trial. Absent expert testimony, plaintiff was unable to provide any admissible evidence of causation, therefore the court granted a renewed motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims.

  • Presenter/Faculty member, FDCC Deposition Boot Camp (April 2016).
  • Presenter, “Cross-examination of Experts at Trial,” FDCC Winter Meeting, Trial Masters Program (March 2016).
  • Moderator, “Bridging the Divide: Plaintiff and Defense Counsel, Ethics, Civility and Mediation Summit,” 2015 American Bar Association TIPS Section Conference (2015).
  • Presenter - “Defending the Roof Crush Case,” American Bar Association Emerging Issues Conference (2015).
  • Presenter - “The Evolution of Event Data Recorders: The Exponential Growth in Data Acquisition and Retention and What That Means to Litigators,” American Bar Association Emerging Issues Conference (2014).
  • Author - “Handling an Automotive Product Liability Case: Practical Considerations,” TortSource, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Spring 2012).
  • Presenter - “Handling the Products Liability Case: Unleashing Skills for All Your Civil Trial Cases,” New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education (2011).
  • Presenter/Program Co-chair - “Emerging Issues in Motor Vehicle Product Liability Litigation,” American Bar Association, Automobile Law Committee, TIPS (2009 and 2011).
  • Author - “Confronting Evidence of Technological Advances in Motor Vehicle Cases: A Defense Counsel’s Perspective,” The Brief, American Bar Association (Spring 2009).
  • Presenter/Mentor - Chester County Bar Association Legal Education Outreach Program (2009).
  • Program Chair - Women Drive Results in Transportation Law National Program, American Bar Association, Automobile Law Committee, TIPS (2008).
  • Presenter - “Technology and Safety Developments in Automobiles,” Women Drive Results in Transportation Law National Program, American Bar Association, Automobile Law Committee, TIPS (2007).
  • Presenter - “Subsequent Remedial Measures,” Product Liability Conference, Defense Research Institute (2006).


  • D. (2002) Rutgers Law School
  • S. (1994) University of Pittsburgh — Business and Psychology


  • New Jersey
  • Pennsylvania
  • 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
  • S. District Court (D. N.J.)
  • S. District Court (E.D. Pa.)
  • S. District Court (W.D. Pa.)