FIRST- PARTY PROPERTY APPELLATE EDITION
FIRST-PARTY PROPERTY APPELLATE TEAM
Kimberly J. Fernandes Partner
Tallahassee | Atlanta
T: (850) 577-1301
kfernandes@kklaw.com
Daniel Montgomery Partner
Jacksonville
T: (904) 549-7700
dmontgomery@kklaw.com
ADMISSIONS
For any questions, please contact:
Jeffrey M. Wank
Chair, First-Party Property and Insurance Coverage Division
Fort Lauderdale
T: (954) 370-9970
jwank@kklaw.com
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).
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. 4D21 2843 (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.”).
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”).
Board Certified in Appellate Law
ADMISSIONS
Florida • Massachusetts • New York • New Jersey • Pennsylvania • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida • United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
SELECTED OPINIONS
w Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. True Builders a/a/o Joiner, 6D2023-2498 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024) (Plaintiff originally filed suit in the wrong court then, after years of litigation, voluntarily dismissed and filed in the correct court. In ruling on entitlement to fees in the second lawsuit the trial court awarded fees incurred in the dismissed action. Appellate court reversed holding no entitlement to fees for the dismissed action under 627.428 as no recovery was had).
w Restore & More, LLC v. Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 4D2023-1560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (affirming summary judgment finding no breach of policy based on AOB company’s claim that including the insureds and mortgage company on claim payments and mailing check directly to the insured violated the AOB).
w Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Tsirnikas, 386 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (holding that trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of the insured where jury made a finding of no liability but also entered an amount for damages)
w Juravin v. DCS Real Estate Investments, LLC, 338 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (granting petition for writ of prohibition and requiring trial court to stay proceedings under Fla. Stat. section 631.67 where insurer providing defense to insured was declared insolvent)
w Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swift, 4D20-2750 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (granting petition for writ of certiorari and finding trial court departed from essential requirements of law by finding a waiver of work product privilege and ordering deposition of expert who was originally disclosed as a trial expert but subsequently removed and identified as a non-testifying consultant expert)
Boston | Tampa, | Short Hills (By Appointment Only) | New York City T: (866) 643-9734 alabbe@kklaw.com Amy L. Koltnow
T: (407) 648-9450 akoltnow@kklaw.com
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).
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).
Jake D. Huxtable Partner/Business
P. Strauss Partner/Business
Alexis Garcia Attorney
Andrew A. Labbe Partner/Business Unit Leader
Ryan J. Galka Senior Trail Counsel
Alan H. Swindoll Partner
Casey B. Mullin Partner/Business Unit Leader
Charles M. Prior Partner/Business Unit Leader
Statute of Limitations – Florida Insurance Guaranty Association
1059 (APRIL 30, 2025)
Party Shifting
ALTON FORBES V. PEOPLE’S TRUST INS. CO., 4D2023-2375 (JAN. 8, 2025)
Nonbinding Arbitration – Award Rejection is Subject to Strict Compliance
PEOPLE’S TRUST INS. CO. V. ELVIN HERNANDEZ AND JEANNETTE HERNANDEZ, 4D2024-3274 (MAR. 26, 2025)
Motion for Remittur – Reducing Damages
UNIVERSAL PROP. & CAS. INS. CO. V. MILTON BRILUS AND BEATRICE BRILUS, 4D2023-2878 (FEB. 19, 2025)
Attorney’s Fees – Necessary
Loss Settlement Restrictions
HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO., INC. V. THOMAS CLARKE AND REBECCA CLARKE, 1D2023-1622 (MAR. 19, 2025)
KK TAKEAWAY:
Notice of claim is not global notice, but requires that proper notice be given on each coverage of the policy.
KK TAKEAWAY:
If repairs are not made, a limitation on actual cash value until repairs are made requires an insured to provide a competing actual cash value estimate to establish a dispute over actual cash value
BACKGROUND:
Insureds acquired a verdict of $541,257 based on replacement cost value as a result of a Hurricane Sally loss. After the initial inspection, a coverage letter was issued with payment for the actual cash value for dwelling coverage. The letter included a personal property receipt and an express request to submit any additional claim.
Thereafter, the Insureds hired a public adjuster who provided an estimate for $440,093.90, which included the same figures for replacement cost value and actual cash value (“RCV/ACV”). PA also submitted an inventory sheet with only RCV values. A third estimate was submitted for lost rental income for replacement cost value only.
During the trial, Homeowners moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the insureds did not suffer a loss greater than the payment issued by homeowners. The verdict was for substantially the full amount listed on the sworn proof of loss, which combined the three PA estimates.
On appeal, Homeowners sought reversal of the verdict on the grounds that:
1. Insured did not provide prompt notice of personal property and lost rental invoice; and
2. Homeowners could not breach as Insureds never submitted a competing ACV estimate.
First, it was undisputed that notice was untimely. Homeowners requested a personal property inventory two days after notice of dwelling damage. The personal property claim was made ten months after the loss. The same was applicable to lost rental income, as there was no proof that records were submitted during the time the dwelling had to be repaired. Given that there was no timely notice, insureds had to overcome the presumption of prejudice. There was no such presentation, thus, Homeowners was entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to personal property and lost rental income coverage.
Second, the policy’s restriction of ACV until repairs or replacement are made is a coverage limitation for the dwelling and personal property. There was no record evidence that Insureds provided Homeowners with actual cash value, thus Homeowners could not breach the policy. An insurer has the burden of showing that it paid the actual cash value of the loss. The burden then shifts to the insureds to show that an insurer did not pay the fully insured loss at actual cash value, and if there is evidence, a scope and extent dispute exists, which is resolved by the factfinder.
AOB Challenges
GLADES RESTORATION, LLC
AAO JIMMY MCKINSTRY
V.
HOMEOWNERS CHOICE
PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CORP., 1D2023-2809, 1334 (APRIL 2, 2025)
KK TAKEAWAY:
Motion to Dismiss challenges are limited to facial review
KK TAKEAWAY:
Leave to amend should be freely granted, absent abuse or futility
BACKGROUND:
The trial court originally dismissed Glades Restoration’s Complaint as the assignment of benefits did not contain a line-item estimate. Glades’ counsel requested leave to amend and attach the necessary record, but the trial court dismissed it with prejudice.
Glades Restoration filed a separate action for additional repairs. In that action, Glades amended the Complaint to include an estimate. However, the trial court dismissed the Complaint because the estimate was not signed, and a footer on the estimate included a date after suit was filed.
The First District Court of Appeals reversed the dismissals, holding that refusal to allow amendment on the first Complaint was an
abuse of discretion, because there was no finding that the amendment would be futile or that the privilege had been abused.
The First District Court of Appeal reversed the second dismissal, holding that section 627.7152 requires the assignment to be signed, not that the estimate attached to the assignment be signed. Additionally, the First District Court of Appeal held that the dispute regarding the footer date was a factual dispute not fit for resolution through a motion to dismiss.
Notice Defense
THOMAS BOUCHARD V. CITIZENS PROPERTY INS. CORP., 3D232202 (FEB. 19, 2025)
KK TAKEAWAY:
Conclusory reports and statements cannot rebut the presumption of prejudice.
KK TAKEAWAY:
An engineer’s report must set forth the
basis for which the conclusion was made and address alternative dates and causes of loss when time has passed.
BACKGROUND:
Bouchard appealed the trial court order granting summary judgment for failure to comply with the policy’s notice requirements. Bouchard reported a Tropical Storm Eta claim 13 months after becoming aware of the loss. The primary focus of the hearing was whether Bouchard could overcome the presumption of prejudice. Bouchard relied on an engineer’s affidavit prepared two and a half years after the loss, then tried to rely on the engineer’s report that was not produced to the trial court or opposing counsel. Bouchard’s counsel filed the engineer’s report after the trial court granted summary judgment and moved for rehearing. The trial court denied the rehearing, concluding the report, like the affidavit, was conclusory.
The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s findings by reiterating that an affidavit that a loss occurred as a result of a specific storm, without support, is deficient as a matter of law. The engineer’s report was also deficient as it did not address the possibility of alternative causes of loss.
Notice Defense
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO. V. THOMAS YAGER AND DEBORAH YAGER, 4D2023 (APRIL 16, 2025)
KK TAKEAWAY:
Waiver must be specifically raised and pled, whether as an affirmative defense or avoidance of affirmative defense.
KK TAKEAWAY:
A claim payment does not waive post-loss duties.
BACKGROUND:
Insureds filed a breach of contract action against Universal based on a water leak. Universal responded, asserting that the claim was paid properly. Also, Universal raised an untimely notice defense based on the fact that the roof leak occurred in May 2020, but the Insureds did not report until August 2020, nearly three months later. The Insureds did not file a reply to Universal’s answer.
The Insureds filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asserting that Universal waived the notice defense by confirming a covered loss occurred and issuing payment. Universal responded that its payment for some of the damage, but not all, was not a
waiver of the post-loss duty. The trial court found waiver by accepting liability and opening coverage.
On appeal, the trial court was reversed. First, Universal initially argued that Insureds were procedurally barred from asserting a waiver because they did not reply to the answer. Waiver must be asserted as an avoidance of an affirmative defense. With such, the Fourth District agreed that Insureds did not raise the avoidance of waiver, thus could not use it as a defense to its post-loss duty.
Next, the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed the merits, reiterating its previous holdings that payment on a claim is not a waiver of an insured’s post-loss duties. See Rodrigo v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 144 So. 3d 690, 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (explaining that an insurer does not in fact waive an affirmative defense based on the insured’s failure to comply with a post-loss condition precedent to suit “by tendering payment” to the insured); see also Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Horne, 314 So. 3d 688, 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (determining that the trial court “was incorrect” in concluding that Universal had “waived” its affirmative defense based on insured’s lack of compliance with postloss condition precedent to suit “by issuing payment to [the insured]”). Bouchard reported a Tropical Storm Eta claim 13 months after becoming aware of the loss.
Trial Evidence – Corporate’ Representative’s Personal Knowledge
CAROL BOYD V. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO., 4D2024-0246 (MAR. 26, 2025)
KK TAKEAWAY:
Corporate representative’s personal knowledge can be based on the review of business records
KK TAKEAWAY:
A prerequisite to refreshing a witness’s recollection is their acknowledgement of failure to recall.
BACKGROUND:
At trial, the corporate representative for Universal testified, over objection, that Insured reported a toilet overflow resulting in water damage. Universal submitted an acknowledgement letter to the Insured advising to keep an accurate record of repair expenses. The corporate representative testified that a payment of $14,905.94 was issued to the Insured for damages and an additional $11,400 for additional living expenses. The corporate representative testified that Universal received a repair
estimate from Insured, totaling $108,900, but the estimate was not detailed and appeared to be a renovation. The corporate representative also testified that it rejected a proof of loss, because the values did not match the estimates provided to date. Universal received supplemental estimates, but the corporate representative testified they appeared to have duplicate types of repairs and nothing appeared to be related to the loss.
During cross-examination, Insured’s counsel inquired whether the corporate representative was aware of notated photographs to which he acknowledged he was. He was then asked whether they noted damage resulting from Category 3 water. A hearsay objection was sustained. During rebuttal, Insured’s counsel requested to refresh the corporate representative’s recollection with notated photographs, but the trial court did not permit it.
Universal called an engineer who testified the property had been remodeled. During crossexamination, the engineer was questioned whether any of the mitigation photos had notations and if anything in the mitigation photos demonstrate Category 3 water damage. Once again, a hearsay objection was sustained.
The verdict returned in favor of Universal finding that although the Insured established it suffered a loss during the policy period, the Insured failed to substantially comply with its post-loss duties. The Fourth District affirmed the verdict in favor of Universal regarding:
Corporate Representative Testimony
Insured argues that the corporate representative was allowed to testify to things outside his personal knowledge. This argument failed, because the corporate representative’s testimony showed personal knowledge through his job duties with Universal and his review of the underwriting file. The personal knowledge requirement does not require a corporate representative to be personally involved, but can include information gathered from review of business records. The corporate representative also testified that he was familiar with Universal’s policy and procedure on storing records, and that he reviewed the Insured’s claim.
Refusal to Allow Refreshing Recollection
Insured argues that prohibiting counsel from refreshing the recollection of the corporate representative and engineer with the notated photographs was error. However, neither witness indicated they were unable to recall a fact at issue. Both affirmatively testified they recalled the notations, thus there was no need to refresh recollection.
Statute of Limitations –Florida Insurance Guaranty Association
KK TAKEAWAY:
FIGA simultaneously has protections under a year statute with the period running from the date of the deadline for filing claims.
BACKGROUND:
For purposes of appeal, the parties agree that the insured property was damaged during Hurricane Irma. The insolvent insurer began investigating its claim before insolvency. The insolvency court set the final deadline for claims to be filed as April 14, 2022. The insolvency court also set February 14, 2022, as the expiration date for any cases that were in suit and stayed pursuant to the statutory stay for insolvency.
KK TAKEAWAY:
FIGA has protections under the general statute of limitations for breach of contract actions of five years, starting from the date of loss.
On October 13, 2022, Insured filed a breach of contract action against FIGA, which is one month beyond the statute of limitations for bringing a property insurance claim. However,
the action was filed within the one-year time period for action against FIGA. At summary judgment, the trial court agreed that the action was time-barred by the general statute of limitations rule, which allowed five years to bring a breach of contract analysis.
The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court by examining whether one specific statute controls. The Insured claimed that the FIGA statute of limitations controlled and excluded the general statute of limitations. The Fourth District held that limiting FIGA to the FIGA one-year statute of limitations would conflict with section 631.57, Florida Statutes, which would give FIGA the right to any defenses that were available to the original insolvent carrier. In interpreting the statutes as a whole, the Fourth District held that FIGA has both the statute of limitations protections, such is a consistent interpretation. Thus, a party has five years to bring an action generally against an insurance carrier, and also in instances involving FIGA, they must bring that action within one year.
Party shifting
ALTON FORBES V. PEOPLE’S TRUST INS. CO., 4D2023-2375
(JAN. 8, 2025)_ )
KK TAKEAWAY:
In a per curiam written opinion, the Fourth District certifies conflict with the Third District, holding that the failure to submit a sworn proof of loss does not require a showing of prejudice.
BACKGROUND:
At the hearing on a motion to dismiss, Escalona’s counsel stipulated to the dismissal of prejudice of Escalona as a party, leaving Proserv Restoration, LLC, and National Environmental Services as plaintiffs. Escalona’s counsel attempted to acquire leave to add Escalona’s wife as a party to the lawsuit.
The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion for leave as untimely. The motion for leave was filed on February 5, 2024, for a Hurricane Irma claim, September 10, 2017. The trial court found that because she sought to bring the action well after the five-year statute of limitations, the amendment was untimely.
Nonbinding Arbitration –Award Rejection is Subject to Strict Compliance
PEOPLE’S
TRUST INS. CO. V. ELVIN HERNANDEZ AND JEANNETTE HERNANDEZ, 4D2024-3274 (MAR. 26, 2025)
KK TAKEAWAY:
Filing a motion for trial de novo instead of rejecting the arbitration award is not a scrivener’s error.
KK TAKEAWAY:
Substantial compliance does not apply to the strict requirements of non-binding arbitration rejection.
BACKGROUND:
While arbitration was completed under the previous version of the rule, allowing for the filing of a trial de novo:
Time for Filing Motion for Trial. Any party may file a motion for trial. ... If a motion for trial is not made within 20 days of service on the parties of the decision, the decision shall be referred to the presiding judge, who shall enter such orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes.
However, the arbitration award was entered one week after the rule was changed:
Notice of Rejection of the Arbitration Decision and Request for Trial. To reject the arbitration decision, within 20 days of the service of the arbitrator’s)(s’) written decision, any party must file a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision and request for trial in the same document. No action or inaction by any party, other than the filing of the notice, will be deemed a rejection of the arbitration decision. … If a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision and request for trial is not made within 20 days of service on the parties of the decision, the decision must be referred to the presiding judge, who must enter such orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes.
The rule change no longer permitted a trial de novo filing, but a rejection of the award and
a request for trial. The Insureds filed a motion for trial de novo within 20 days, but People’s Trust filed a motion to enforce the non-binding arbitration award based on the rule change. The trial court denied the motion to enforce, referring to the old rule and case law regarding the same.
The Fourth District Court of Appeals expressly rejected this based on the express language of the rule rejecting any other filing. The Fourth District distinguished a scivener’s error circumstance because the new rule required an express “notice of rejection of arbitration award.”
The Fourth District also squarely addressed that allowing a substantial compliance carveout would open the door that permitted a judicial discretion of the statute and rule. That door was recently closed. See Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc. v. Rouse, 394 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024).
However, even with the Fourth’s opinion, please keep in mind the Fourth’s recent opinion allowing for an arbitration award to be vacated under excusable neglect. See Howard Roy Housen and Valerie Housen v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 4D2023-2720 (Jan. 22, 2025)
Motion for Remittur
– Reducing Damages
KK TAKEAWAY:
A verdict for damages can only be based on the competent evidence provided to the jury. A jury cannot increase the damages sought by a party, and the trial court must ensure the verdict is based on competent evidence.
BACKGROUND:
Insureds suffered a plumbing loss, including pipe replacement, which Universal denied.
At trial, the Insureds both testified that their public adjuster prepared the sworn proof of loss of $168,168.77 based on his estimate of damages. The Insureds testified that this is what the public adjuster told them their damages were. The public adjuster did not testify, nor was his estimate submitted at trial. Insureds called a plumbing expert who testified to the scope of necessary repairs and a general contractor who testified the cost would be $96,150.00. Universal did not present competing damages testimony or evidence, but rather disputed liability as a whole. In the closing argument, the Insureds argued their cost to repair was $96,150. The jury returned a verdict for the sworn proof of loss for $168,168.77.
Universal filed a motion for remittur arguing that the only evidence of the cost of repair was the general contractor’s testimony of $96,150. The trial court denied the motion and entered a final judgment for $165,668.77.
Attorney’s Fees –Necessary findings
UNIVERSAL PROP. & CAS. INS. CO. V. ABDEL MEDRO, 3D24-0338 (FEB. 19, 2025)
KK TAKEAWAY:
To find a loadstar value the trial court must make express findings as to the Rowe factors. Without competent substantial evidence of these factors, the order will not stand.
KK TAKEAWAY:
To apply a contingency fee multiplier, the trial court must evaluate the Quanstrom factors and make express findings based on competent substantial evidence.
BACKGROUND:
Medro’s fee expert, Terry, testified that he increased the retainer hourly rate from $400$550 per hour. His basis was that other Plaintiff’s attorneys based on a rate range of $400-$550 with higher value given for more experience. The retainer agreement was not introduced as evidence. When Terry was questioned regarding a contingency multiplier he testified that he was not sure if Medro’s counsel would not have taken the case but for a contingency multiplier. Terry testified that he had not researched whether other firms would have accepted the case without a multiplier. The trial court granted the lodestar
rate increase of $550 and a 1.8 multiplier without express findings.
The Third District Court of Appeals reversed the order. It first held the only evidence to support the loadstar increase was the arbitrary testimony of Terry. There was nothing to support the actual rates in the community. The Third District also found the order did not make the express findings required by Rowe.
Second, the Third District reversed the contingency multiplier as it did not meet the Quanstrom factors. Terry only testified that a multiplier was useful to acquire counsel, not that counsel would only take the case with a multiplier. There was no record evidence that Medro had difficulty retaining counsel.
Third, there was no evidence regarding the novelty and difficulty of the question involved in the case or whether Medro could find any other competent counsel in the relevant market.
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 and Insurance Coverage focusing his practice on first-party property insurance Defense, including coverage and bad faith litigation. Jeffrey also handles the defense of a wide array of third-party insurance defense claims.
Jeffrey assists insurers in all aspects of coverage disputes, including responses to civil remedy notices of insurer violations, pre-suit investigations and coverage evaluations, declaratory judgment and bad faith litigation. He defends property insurers throughout Florida in first-party coverage matters, where many of the claims involve sinkhole, windstorm, fire, mold, theft and water losses.
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 often asked to draft detailed coverage opinions, reservation of rights letters, declinations, and prosecute declaratory relief actions.
Jeffrey also has experience in handling complex civil and commercial matters, including the defense of personal injury, premises liability, employment discrimination, medical malpractice, nursing home liability, homeowner and condominium association claims, and construction defect cases.
Jeffrey has been named a Florida Super Lawyer Rising Star since 2014. In 2011, he was elected to the Broward Bar Association Young Lawyers Section Board of Directors, where he served as Secretary on the organization’s Executive Board and moved up to President in June 2015. Jeffrey was also named the Chair on the Board of Directors of Legal Aid Service of Broward County & Coast to Coast Legal Aid of South Florida for the 2019 term and previously served as the Vice Chair for the 2018 term.
Jeffrey earned his Bachelor of Science in Political Science from Florida State University and went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree from Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center.
Daniel Montgomery Partner/Business Unit Leader
Email Daniel Montgomery
Daniel Montgomery is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg where he assists in handling matters related to first-party property insurance defense. Daniel handles all aspects of first-party property defense, including coverage disputes, pre-suit investigations, fraud investigations, and CRN 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.
Daniel received his Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice, summa cum laude, with a Certificate of Crime Scene Investigation, from Colorado Technical University. He then went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree from Florida Coastal School of Law, graduating cum laude.
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.
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS
Amy L. Koltnow Partner/Business Unit Leader
Email Amy L. Koltnow
Amy Koltnow is a Partner and Business Unit Leader at Kelley Kronenberg and has over 30 years of legal experience. With a focus on all aspects of business law and litigation, Amy represents a diverse clientele, ranging from individuals to large corporations, in federal and state courts, arbitration, and administrative forums.
Amy has proven herself as a trial attorney, handling complex and high-stakes bench and jury trials. Her wide-ranging expertise in different areas of litigation consistently delivers positive results for her clients, both at trial and on appeal. Additionally, Amy’s legal career includes serving as outside General Counsel
for a Florida property & casualty insurance company, where she oversaw statewide litigation, established claims handling protocols, and provided strategic counsel to company executives. Her leadership in this role extended to guiding panel defense counsel and implementing solution-driven approaches.
Amy holds a Bachelor of Science in Journalism & Communications from the University of Florida and earned her Juris Doctor degree from Stetson University College of Law. Her diverse background, coupled with her wealth of experience, uniquely positions her to provide strategic and effective legal counsel to her clients at Kelley Kronenberg.
ACCOLADES AWARDS AND 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:
more than with over the convenience of
Employees Attorneys Locations
Founded in 1980, Kelley Kronenberg is an award winning, multi-practice national law firm with 510 employees, 230 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.
LOCATIONS
FORT LAUDERDALE
10360 W. State Road 84
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324
Phone: (954) 370-9970
ORLANDO
20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 704
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 648-9450
TAMPA
1511 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 400
Tampa, FL 33607
Phone: (813) 223-1697
DAYTONA
128 Orange Avenue, Unit 306
Daytona Beach, FL 32114
Phone: (754) 888-5437
NEW YORK CITY
111 Broadway, Suite 1205
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (845) 306-7867
CHICAGO
20 N. Clark Street, Suite 1150
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 216-8828
JACKSONVILLE
10245 Centurion Parkway N, Suite 100
Jacksonville, FL 32256
Phone: (904) 549-7700
MERRILLVILLE
233 E. 84th Drive, Suite 200
Merrillville, IN 46410
Phone: (317) 731-6243
BY APPOINTMENT ONLY
ALBANY
401 New Karner Road. Suite 301
Albany, NY 12205
Phone: (845) 306-7867
SHORT HILLS
51 John F. Kennedy Parkway
First Floor West
Short Hills, NJ 07078
Phone: (908) 403-8174
MIAMI
220 Alhambra Circle, Suite 410
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 503-0850
NEW ORLEANS
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2400
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Phone: (504) 208-9055
TALLAHASSEE
6267 Old Water Oak Road, Suite 250
Tallahassee, FL 32312
Phone: (850) 577-1301
DALLAS
5956 Sherry Lane, 20th Floor
Dallas, TX 75225
Phone: (983) 999-4640
WEST PALM BEACH
1475 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 275
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 684-5956
INDIANAPOLIS
10475 Crosspoint Blvd., Suite 218
Indianapolis, IN 46256
Phone: (317) 731-6243
NAPLES
3080 Tamiami Trail E., Suite 322
Naples, FL 34112
Phone: (239) 990-6490
BOSTON
90 Canal Street
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: (866) 643-9734
ATLANTA
1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 990-4972
FLORIDA KEYS
91760 Overseas Highway, Suite 100
Tavernier, FL 33070
Phone: (305) 928-6999
