IN THE
AU G U S T 2026
NOW
FIRST- PARTY PROPERTY APPELLATE EDITION
FIRST-PARTY PROPERTY APPELLATE TEAM For any questions, please contact: Jeffrey M. Wank Chair, First-Party Property and Insurance Coverage Division Fort Lauderdale, FL | T: (954) 370-9970 | jwank@kklaw.com
ADMISSIONS Florida • Georgia • United States Court of Appeal, Eleventh Circuit
SELECTED OPINIONS w Expert Inspections, LLC d/b/a ITest d/b/a Moldexpert.com a/a/o Pat Beckford v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 333 So.3d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (holding that an insurer cannot be required to follow the terms of an AOB contract where the insurer is not a party to that contract). w The Kidwell Group, LLC d/b/a Air Quality Assessors of Florida a/a/o Maria Amadio v. Olympus Insurance Company, Case No. 5D21-2955 (Fla. 5th DCA July 22, 2022) (interpreting section 627.7152, F.S., as applying to AOB contracts executed after the enactment of the statute, finding the policy inception date irrelevant to the analysis).
Kimberly J. Fernandes Partner Tallahassee | Atlanta T: (850) 577-1301 kfernandes@kklaw.com
w Saunders v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Company, 314 So.3d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (interpreting the “faulty workmanship” policy exclusion to include the workmanship process as well as the finished product in affirming the insurer’s denial of a property damage claim). w The Kidwell Group, LLC d/b/a Air Quality Assessors of Florida a/a/o Benjamin Kivovitz, Case No. 4D212843 (Fla. 4th DCA June 15, 2022) (enforcing the new section 627.7152, F.S., requirement of including a line-item estimate with an AOB contract at the time of execution)
ADMISSIONS Florida • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida • U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
SELECTED OPINIONS w Progressive American Insurance Company v. Glassmetics, LLC, No. 2D21-488, 2022 WL 1592154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (“we reverse the trial court’s order and its conclusions (1) that the appraisal provision was against the public policy underlying section 627.428; (2) that the appraisal provision failed to provide sufficient procedures and methodologies; (3) that Progressive waived its appraisal right; (4) that the appraisal provision was unenforceable because Progressive failed to prove that the insured knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his rights of access to courts, to a jury trial, and to due process; and (5) that the appraisal provision contains an ambiguity.”).
Daniel Montgomery Partner Jacksonville T: (904) 549-7700 dmontgomery@kklaw.com
w All Auto Glass v. Progressive American Ins. Co., Case No. 2018-SC-3126, 2019-33-AP (Fla. Seminole Cnty. Appellate Division.) (“reversing trial court, holding ruling of district court of appeal in jurisdiction other than where trial court is located is binding upon trial court absent conflict with another district court of appeal. ) w Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v Broward Ins. Recovery Ctr., LLC, 322 So. 3d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“reversing trial court, holding prohibitive cost doctrine inapplicable to appraisal”).
ADMISSIONS Florida • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida • U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
SELECTED OPINIONS w Security First Ins. Co. v. Czelusniak, 305 So. 3d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), rev. den., 2020 WL 6708664 (Nov. 16, 2020) (established legal precedent for the interpretation and enforcement of anti-concurrent exclusionary provisions in Florida). w De la Rosa v. Florida Peninsula Ins. Co., 246 So. 3d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (set new precedent for late-reported claims when an insurer is prejudiced in its ability to investigate the extent of the damage).
Amy L. Koltnow Partner
w Castellanos v. Next Door Co., 192 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 2016) (amicus curiae brief for insurance association groups in high-profile Florida Supreme Court case contemplating the constitutionality of Florida law governing claimants’ attorney’s fees in workers’ compensation claims).
Orlando T: (407) 648-9450 akoltnow@kklaw.com
IN THE
NOW | 3
NOTABLE
CASE WINS
Zero-Dollar Walk-Away in Water Damage Claim Secured After Summary Judgment Motion
Read More
Coral Lerner Practice Partner
Roofing Lawsuit Dismissed with Prejudice After Sanctions Motion Served
Jake D. Huxtable
Melissa Usher
Zachary A. Schiffman
Partner/Business Unit Leader
Partner
Practice Partner
Read More
For additional successes in First-Party Property cases, please click here.
4 | IN THE
NOW
TABLE OF
CONTENTS First-Party Property Appellate Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 3 Case Wins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 AOB Challenges — Attorney’s Fees MASTER DRY OUT, INC., A/A/O ELBA ABIJANA V. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, 2D2024-2205 (2D DCA JUNE 26, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 AOB Challenges – Excess Emergency Services RESTORATION GENIE, INC. A/A/O MATTHEW & TIFFANY MCDONALD V. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, NO.: 4D2024-3346 (4TH DCA JUNE 17, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 AOB Challenge – Reassignment of Benefits BLACK DIAMOND FUNDING VENTURES, LLC A/A/O QUALITY ASSESSMENTS & LOGISTICS, A/A/O DWAYNE STRONG, NO.: 4D2024-2533 (JUNE 3, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appraisal — Demand Requirements CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION V. ELIZABETH DIAZ, ET AL., 3D25-1078 (3D DCA JUNE 17, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Attorney’s Fees — Multiplier and Expert Costs UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY V. ORLANDO CISNEROS DAMERAS, 3D24-2233 (JUNE 24, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 11 Debris Removal — Emergency Measures DRI FORCE RESTORATION, INC., A/A/O ANDRE CHOW V. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, 3D24-1330 (3D DCA JUNE 17, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 12 Attorney’s Fees – Entitlement is Distinct from Reasonableness RM & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING, INC. A/A/O QUAMES MCKINNON, NO. 4D2024-2331 (4THDCA JUNE 17, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 13 Attorney’s Fees – FIGA FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION V. DAVID HINTZ & JUDITH HINTZ, NO. 4D2025-0254 (4THDCA JUNE 17, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 17 Awards and Accolades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6 | IN THE
NOW
AOB Challenges Master Dry Out, Inc., a/a/o Elba Abijana v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 2D20242205 (2d DCA June 26, 2026) KK TAKEAWAY: A settlement is not a “judgment obtained” under section 627.7152(10)(a). An AOB assignee cannot recover attorney’s fees based on a settlement alone.
BACKGROUND: The insured’s home sustained water damage from a plumbing failure. She contracted with Master Dry Out for repairs and executed a partial assignment of her insurance benefits. State Farm refused to pay and Master Dry Out filed suit. The parties settled, with State Farm admitting no liability and both parties acknowledging the settlement as a compromise of disputed claims. Master Dry Out then moved for attorney’s fees, arguing the settlement was the functional equivalent of a confession of judgment under section 627.7152(10)(a). The Second District affirmed the denial. Section 627.7152(10)(a) ties attorney’s fees to the difference between the judgment obtained and the pre-suit settlement offer. The statute defines “judgment obtained” as damages recovered. Settlement proceeds are not damages recovered. They are a contractual estimate of liability, and the
parties here expressly framed their agreement as a compromise of doubtful and disputed claims with no admission of liability. No judgment was obtained, and no fee award was available.
AOB Challenges – Excess Emergency Services Restoration Genie, Inc. a/a/o Matthew & Tiffany McDonald v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, No.: 4D2024-3346 (4th DCA June 17, 2026) KK TAKEAWAY: Emergency circumstances don’t excuse the statutory cap on assigned post-loss benefits.
BACKGROUND: Fourth District affirmed the trial court, holding that if an assigner acts under an urgent or emergency circumstance to protect the property from damage and executes an assignment of benefits to protect, repair, restore, or replace property or to mitigate against further damage to the property, an assignee may not receive an assignment of post-loss benefits under a residential property insurance policy in excess of the greater of $3,000 or 1% of Coverage A limit under such policy.
IN THE
NOW | 7
AOB Challenge – Reassignment of Benefits Black Diamond Funding Ventures, LLC a/a/o Quality Assessments & Logistics, a/a/o Dwayne Strong, No.: 4D2024-2533 (June 3, 2026) KK TAKEAWAY: A secondary or downstream transfer of post-loss insurance claims, essentially an assignment of benefits from a service provider to a third-party non-service provider, is bound by the statutory requirements of section 627.7152, Florida Statutes.
8 | IN THE
NOW
BACKGROUND: Insured sustained property damage and executed a written Assignment of Benefits (AOB) to contractor Quality Assessments & Logistics, LLC (QAL) to perform mitigation/ restoration services. QAL subsequently transferred its rights to payment and its right to sue the insurer to a third-party litigation funder, Black Diamond Funding Ventures, LLC, via a “Purchase Agreement” (a practice where financial firms purchase accounts receivable from contractors). When Citizens Property Insurance Corporation declined to pay the full invoice, Black Diamond sued Citizens for breach of contract as a downstream assignee. Citizens moved for summary judgment, arguing that Black Diamond’s Purchase Agreement was subject to Florida’s Assignment of Benefits statute, section 627.7152, Florida Statutes. Because the Purchase Agreement did not comply with the strict statutory requirements mandated for AOB agreements, Citizens claimed it was invalid and that Black Diamond lacked standing to sue.
Appraisal — Demand Requirements Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Elizabeth Diaz, et al., 3D25-1078 (3d DCA June 17, 2026) KK TAKEAWAY: A written appraisal demand must include an estimate of the amount in dispute as required by the policy. A demand that omits the estimate does not trigger the appraisal process.
BACKGROUND: Following a covered loss, Citizens issued a written demand for appraisal. The policy required the demand to include an estimate of the amount in dispute, with a description of each damaged item, the extent of damage, and the estimated cost to repair or replace each item. Citizens’ demand did not include that estimate. The trial court denied the motion to compel appraisal. The Third District affirmed. The right to appraisal is created by the policy and cannot be triggered until both parties have complied with their contractual obligations. Citizens did not comply, and the motion was properly denied.
IN THE
NOW | 9
Attorney’s Fees — Multiplier and Expert Costs Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Orlando Cisneros Dameras, 3D24-2233 (June 24, 2026) KK TAKEAWAY: To support a contingency fee multiplier, the record must contain evidence that competent counsel was unavailable in the 10 | IN THE
NOW
relevant market without one. Counsel’s qualifications and willingness to take the case are not sufficient.
KK TAKEAWAY: Costs for non-testifying expert witnesses are not taxable under section 92.231(2). Only experts who testified at trial may be taxed as costs.
BACKGROUND: Following a settlement, the trial court awarded the insured a lodestar fee of $389,362.50 with a 2.5 contingency risk multiplier, totaling $973,406.25, plus $138,658.25 in costs that included fees for two experts who did not testify. Universal appealed.
The Third District affirmed the lodestar. The trial court properly considered the Rowe and Quanstrom factors and supported its findings with sufficient evidence. The multiplier was a different matter. The trial court’s findings focused on the qualifications of the insured’s counsel and their willingness to take the case through trial, but did not address whether competent counsel was unavailable in the relevant market without a multiplier. The insured’s fee expert testified that nobody would take the case without one, but never testified that no other lawyers in the market were competent to handle it or would have done so on an hourly basis. The trial court acknowledged numerous other firms practicing property insurance law in South Florida. The 2.5 multiplier was reversed, and the case was remanded for entry of the lodestar without a multiplier.
Debris Removal — Emergency Measures
The Court also reversed the $42,658.25 awarded for the two non-testifying experts. Section 92.231(2) authorizes costs only for expert witnesses who testified. Fees for experts retained to prepare for trial, but who did not take the stand are not taxable without specific findings that their preparation was reasonably necessary for trial.
BACKGROUND:
Dri Force Restoration, Inc., a/a/o Andre Chow v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, 3D241330 (3d DCA June 17, 2026) KK TAKEAWAY: Debris removal performed as part of emergency restoration services falls under the Reasonable Emergency Measures provision and the statutory cap. It is not separately recoverable under the policy’s debris removal provision.
Chow’s home sustained water damage from two separate incidents, a shower pan leak and a kitchen angle valve leak. He hired Dri Force for restoration services on both claims and executed an assignment of benefits. Each invoice included a $134.46 charge for hauling debris. Neither Chow nor Dri Force requested authorization to exceed the Reasonable Emergency Measures limit. Citizens paid $3,000 per claim under that provision and moved for summary judgment, arguing it had satisfied its obligations. Dri Force crossmoved, contending the debris removal charges were separately covered under the debris removal provision and not subject to the statutory cap.
IN THE
NOW | 11
The Third District affirmed summary judgment for Citizens. Dri Force was hired to perform restoration services, not debris removal, and submitted its charges under the Reasonable Emergency Measures provision. Citing the Fourth District’s decision in Certified Priority Restoration v. Citizens, the court held that debris removal performed in the course of emergency mitigation work is part of those services. Removing damaged materials during mitigation creates debris as a byproduct of the work. It is not a standalone service covered separately under the policy.
Attorney’s Fees – Entitlement is Distinct from Reasonableness RM & Associates Consulting, Inc. a/a/o Quames McKinnon, No. 4d2024-2331 (4thDCA June 17, 2026)
BACKGROUND: The Insured suffered a water loss and executed an AOB with RM to provide services. RM subsequently sued the insurer, alleging a failure to pay the full amount owed for its work. The insurer defended the action on the basis that the policy required the insured to notify the insurer before authorizing repairs so it could elect to use its preferred contractor and that because the insured never complied with this provision its liability was limited to the amount its preferred contractor would have charged for the work. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Insurer and same was affirmed by the Fourth DCA on appeal with the Fourth DCA granting the insurer’s motion for appellate attorney’s fee under Florida Statutes, subject to the trial court’s determination of entitlement and amount. On remand to determine the amount of attorney’s fees, the trial court awarded the Insurer $24,866.17 in appellate attorney’s fees and RM appealed the reasonableness and necessity of the amount. The key issues in the case were as follows: •
Block Billing/Vague Time Entries: the billing records included vague entries (e.g., simply stating work on answer brief) without detailing the specific tasks performed
•
Duplicative Work Across Parallel Appeals: the defense firm was simultaneously handling another pending appeal involving a nearly identical legal issue. The firm failed to account for or deduct overlapping research/work, raising concerns of duplicated billable hours.
KK TAKEAWAY: Winning the legal entitlement to attorney’s fees is separate from proving the reasonableness of the amount. To sustain a fee award, billing records and expert testimony must detail specific tasks and demonstrate that hours were not duplicative, especially when counsel briefs similar issues in parallel cases
12 | IN THE
NOW
The Fourth DCA reversed the appellate attorney’s fees award and remanded the matter to the trial court to redetermine the fee amount based on competent substantial evidence.
Attorney’s Fees – FIGA Florida Insurance Guaranty Association v. David Hintz & Judith Hintz, No. 4D2025-0254 (4thDCA June 17, 2026)
KK TAKEAWAY: FIGA cannot be compelled to pay the portion of a settlement agreement designated for attorney’s fees, even if the insolvent insurer had agreed to pay it prior to going under.
BACKGROUND: The Insureds sued their insurer over a denied Hurricane Irma claim for breach of contract and demanded statutory attorney’s fees. Prior to trial, the parties reached a global settlement (indemnity and fees); however, the insurer became insolvent, and FIGA was substituted into the case. Similar to Wilson, FIGA took the position that the negotiated attorney’s fees portion fell outside the statutory definition of a covered claim. The trial court ordered FIGA to pay attorney’s fees, and FIGA appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeals.
IN THE
NOW | 13
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS Jeffrey M. Wank Chair, First-Party Property and Insurance Coverage Division Email Jeffrey M. Wank
Jeffrey Wank is Chair of First-Party Property
Jeffrey also has experience in handling complex
and Insurance Coverage focusing his practice on
civil and commercial matters, including the defense
first-party property insurance Defense, including
of personal injury, premises liability, employment
coverage and bad faith litigation. Jeffrey also
discrimination, medical malpractice, nursing home
handles the defense of a wide array of third-party
liability, homeowner and condominium association
insurance defense claims.
claims, and construction defect cases.
Jeffrey assists insurers in all aspects of coverage
Jeffrey has been named a Florida Super Lawyer
disputes, including responses to civil remedy
Rising Star since 2014. In 2011, he was elected
notices of insurer violations, pre-suit investigations
to the Broward Bar Association Young Lawyers
and coverage evaluations, declaratory judgment
Section Board of Directors, where he served as
and bad faith litigation. He defends property
Secretary on the organization’s Executive Board
insurers throughout Florida in first-party coverage
and moved up to President in June 2015. Jeffrey
matters, where many of the claims involve sinkhole,
was also named the Chair on the Board of Directors
windstorm, fire, mold, theft and water losses.
of Legal Aid Service of Broward County & Coast to
In addition, Jeffrey serves as coverage and bad faith counsel in third-party actions, including monitoring the defense of litigation. As part of this role, he is
Coast Legal Aid of South Florida for the 2019 term and previously served as the Vice Chair for the 2018 term.
often asked to draft detailed coverage opinions,
Jeffrey earned his Bachelor of Science in Political
reservation of rights letters, declinations, and
Science
prosecute declaratory relief actions.
went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree from
from
Florida
State
University
and
Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center.
14 | IN THE
NOW
Daniel Montgomery Partner/Business Unit Leader Email Daniel Montgomery
Kelley
Daniel received his Bachelor of Science degree
Kronenberg where he assists in handling matters
in Criminal Justice, summa cum laude, with a
related to first-party property insurance defense.
Certificate of Crime Scene Investigation, from
Daniel handles all aspects of first-party property
Colorado Technical University. He then went on to
defense, including coverage disputes, pre-suit
earn his Juris Doctor degree from Florida Coastal
investigations, fraud investigations, and CRN
School of Law, graduating cum laude.
Daniel
Montgomery
is
a
Partner
at
responses. Additionally, our clients frequently engage Daniel to assist with the development of claims processes and procedures. Daniel’s practice is also focused on the highly-specialized areas of first-party property appeals and auto glass defense. Prior to joining Kelley Kronenberg, Daniel worked as an Associate Attorney with an Am Law 200 firm, focusing his practice on first-party auto coverage and litigation, general liability litigation, and appellate law. Daniel also practiced as an Assistant State Attorney for Florida’s Fourth Judicial Circuit, in Jacksonville, where he litigated a variety of criminal proceedings through trial and served as a liaison for UVISA Certifications.
Since Law School, Daniel continued his education by obtaining a Master of Science, summa cum laude, from Florida State University, with a Certificate in U.S. Intelligence. Daniel acquired an additional LL.M. in Executive Litigation Management from Baylor Law School. During Daniel’s career he has served on several committees
and
groups
continually
working
to develop awareness, knowledge, and best practices in a variety of areas including mental health, utilizing technology to drive efficiencies, special investigations, and litigation management best practices.
IN THE
NOW | 15
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS
Zachary A. Schiffman Practice Partner Email Zachary A. Schiffman
Zachary Schiffman is a Practice Partner at Kelley
Zachary received his Bachelor of Science in
Kronenberg, focusing his practice on first-party
Business Administration from the University
property and third-party matters. Zachary assists
of Central Florida, where he made Dean’s and
in representing property insurance carriers in
President’s Lists. While at the University of Central
complex coverage disputes and bad faith claims.
Florida, Zachary was a member of Phi Alpha Delta,
Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, Zachary practiced at a prominent multistate defense firm defending
the Sports Business Club, and the National Society of Collegiate Scholars.
a broad range of cases ranging from automobile
Zachary earned his Juris Doctor degree from the
accidents, first-party property claims (commercial
University of Miami School of Law, where he was
and
claims,
an active member of the Business Law Society
and premises liability cases. Before becoming
and the Cardozo Jewish Law Society. While in law
a civil defense attorney, Zachary represented
school, Zachary clerked for a large and respected
homeowners in commercial insureds in first-party
Plaintiff’s firm specializing in first-party property
disputes at a respected Plaintiff’s practice. As such,
disputes.
residential),
construction
defect,
Zachary brings a unique perspective and provides an individualized approach to every case.
Zachary enjoys spending time with family and friends outside of the office and watchingYankees games.
16 | IN THE
NOW
AWARDS AND
ACCOLADES FIRM AWARDS Kelley Kronenberg has been the recipient of numerous awards and honors both firm-wide and for a number of our practices, including individual accolades. Below is a select list of recognition and awards:
2021 – 2026 Top Workplaces USA Energage
2020 – 2026 Top Workplaces Sun Sentinel
2019 – 2026 Best Law Firms U.S. News - Best Lawyers
2024 Top Performer Leadership Council on Legal Diversity
2012 – 2025 NLJ 500 The National Law Journal
2016 – 2026 Largest Law Firms Tampa Bay Business Journal
2025 Women Scorecard Law.com
2020 – 2022, 2024 Compass Award Leadership Council on Legal Diversity
2012 – 2026 Top Law Firms South Florida Business Journal
2022 – 2023 Best Places To Work New Orleans CityBusiness
2016 – 2026 Largest Central Florida Law Firms Orlando Business Journal
2021 Diversity Team Award Profiles in Diversity Journal
2017 – 2024 400 Largest Law Firms Law360
IN THE
NOW | 17
with over
523
Employees
more than
the convenience of
Attorneys
Locations
237
20
Founded in 1980, Kelley Kronenberg is an award winning, multi-practice national law firm with 507 employees, 224 attorneys, and 20 locations throughout Florida and the United States. We are privileged to represent large public and private companies, small businesses, and individuals nationwide. With more than 40 practice areas, and growth on the horizon, we offer a comprehensive catalog of legal services to protect your legal interests in business and at home. Our firm is progressive and technologically advanced, while remaining true to our customer service heritage: integrity, ingenuity, and sincerity. Ever mindful of our history, but intensely committed to our future, we offer our clients a small firm feel with large firm resources.
OUR
LOCATIONS FORT LAUDERDALE
NEW YORK CITY
ORLANDO
CHICAGO
TAMPA
JACKSONVILLE
DAYTONA
MERRILLVILLE
10360 W. State Road 84 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 370-9970
20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 704 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 648-9450
1511 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 950 Tampa, FL 33607 Phone: (813) 223-1697
128 Orange Avenue, Unit 306 Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Phone: (754) 888-5437
111 Broadway, Suite 1205 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (845) 306-7867
20 N. Clark Street, Suite 1150 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 216-8828
10245 Centurion Parkway N, Suite 100 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Phone: (904) 549-7700
233 E. 84th Drive, Suite 200 Merrillville, IN 46410 Phone: (317) 731-6243
MIAMI
WEST PALM BEACH
NEW ORLEANS
INDIANAPOLIS
TALLAHASSEE
NAPLES
DALLAS
HOUSTON
220 Alhambra Circle, Suite 410 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 503-0850
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2400 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Phone: (504) 208-9055
6267 Old Water Oak Road, Suite 250 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Phone: (850) 577-1301
5956 Sherry Lane, 20th Floor Dallas, TX 75225 Phone: (983) 999-4640
1501 Belvedere Road, Suite 500-504 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Phone: (561) 684-5956
10475 Crosspoint Blvd., Suite 218 Indianapolis, IN 46256 Phone: (317) 731-6243
3080 Tamiami Trail E., Suite 322 Naples, FL 34112 Phone: (239) 990-6490
14090 Southwest Freeway, Suite 450 Sugar Land, TX 77478 Phone: (983) 999-4640
BY APPOINTMENT ONLY BUFFALO
50 Fountain Plaza Buffalo, NY 14202 Phone: (716) 647-7254
SHORT HILLS
51 John F. Kennedy Parkway First Floor West Short Hills, NJ 07078 Phone: (862) 421-3155
ALBANY
401 New Karner Road. Suite 301 Albany, NY 12205 Phone: (845) 306-7867
ATLANTA
1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 990-4972
IN THE
NOW | 19
WWW.KKLAW.COM | 800.484.4381