IN THE
S E P T E M B E R 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 Dismissal Secured with Prejudice After Sanctions Motion in PreExisting Damage Claim
Read More
Coral Lerner Practice Partner
Summary Judgment Secured in Fully Denied Hurricane Roof Claim
Daniel Montgomery
Scott McCloskey
Partner/Business Unit Leader
Partner
Read More
Motion in Limine Victory Secured, Forcing Favorable Settlement in Hurricane Sally Property Case Kimberly J. Fernandes 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 Motion for Remittitur — Damages Evidence UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY V. PAMELA KARMO AND ARMAH KARMO, 1D2024-3259 (1ST DCA JULY 22, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Notice Defense — Prejudice Burden / Policy Language SFR SERVICES, LLC A/A/O WILD OAK BAY OWNER ASSOCIATION, INC. V. AMERICAN COASTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 2D2024-1947 (2D DCA JULY 22, 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 9 Attorney’s Fees — Section 57.105 Findings CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION V. QUALITY MOLD FINDERS CORP., 3D25-0697 (3D DCA JULY 15, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Ensuing Loss — Conflicting Evidence ROBERTAUD TOUSSAINT V. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 3D24-1344 (3D DCA JULY 1, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Pre-Suit Notice — Retroactivity UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY V. ENDRINA MARIA MONTILVA DAVILA AND RAFAEL MOLINA, 4D2025-0848 (JULY 22, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Loss Settlement — Replacement Cost Value / Conflict Certified UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY V. REESE F. KING AND JANICE A. KING, 6D20240241 (6TH DCA JULY 24, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Florida Insurance Guaranty Association — Attorney’s Fees FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, INC. V. RAY WILSON, 4D2025-0232 (JULY 8, 2026) . . . . . . 13 Florida Insurance Guaranty Association — Attorney’s Fees / Pre-Insolvency Settlement FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION V. ALBERT BROOME AND DEBORAH BROOME, 6D2025-1813 (6TH DCA JULY 10, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Void Judgment — Substituted Service KAMBIZ ZADEH V. AEGIS SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, 3D25-2059 (3RD DCA JULY 22, 2026) . . . . . 15 - 16 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 20 Awards and Accolades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6 | IN THE
NOW
Motion for Remittitur — Damages Evidence Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Pamela Karmo and Armah Karmo, 1D2024-3259 (1st DCA July 22, 2026) KK TAKEAWAY: A jury verdict that exceeds the only admitted evidence cannot stand. Economic damages must rest on evidence providing a reasonable basis for determining a definite amount.
KK TAKEAWAY: General testimony about additional work, inflation, and related conditions does not support a damages figure without quantified evidence tying those factors to a specific amount.
valuing the claimed loss at $79,680.22 in RCV and $50,219.97 in ACV. The jury awarded $335,000 in RCV and $305,000 in ACV. Universal moved for remittitur and a new trial. The trial court denied both motions despite expressing concern at the hearing that the award did not bear a reasonable relation to the damages proved. The First District reversed. The only damages evidence in the record was the Triad estimates. The jury’s award was several times higher than those figures, and no evidence supported the difference. The insureds pointed to inflation, a separate plumbing contract with redacted dollar amounts, and testimony about sewagesaturated backfill beneath the slab. None of those items supplied a number. No witness quantified any increase in labor or material costs, and no estimate assigned a separate dollar value to backfill or slab work. A jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence but may not supply a damages figure through speculation. The trial court abused its discretion in denying post-trial relief, and the case was remanded for further proceedings limited to damages.
BACKGROUND: Water and sewage backed up into the insureds’ home through multiple fixtures. Universal paid for documented water damage but denied additional benefits for access work needed to reach the cast-iron drainage system beneath the slab. The insureds contended the drainage system had failed and required full replacement, which would require trenching through the flooring and slab. At trial, the insureds introduced two estimates from Triad Restoration Services IN THE
NOW | 7
Notice Defense — Prejudice Burden / Policy Language
KK TAKEAWAY: Initial discovery of roof tile displacement and reported leaks shortly after a hurricane is sufficient to trigger the duty to notify, even without knowledge of the full extent of the damage.
KK TAKEAWAY:
SFR Services, LLC a/a/o Wild Oak Bay Owner Association, Inc. v. American Coastal Insurance Company, 2D2024-1947 (2d DCA July 22, 2026) KK TAKEAWAY: Where policy language conditions denial of coverage on the insurer proving prejudice across all listed post-loss duties, no presumption of prejudice applies. The insurer bears the burden of proving actual prejudice.
8 | IN THE
NOW
A settlement offer made pursuant to section 627.7152(9) cannot be accepted after summary judgment has been entered against the offeree.
BACKGROUND: Wild Oak Bay sustained hurricane damage from Hurricane Irma in September 2017. The property manager observed displaced and damaged roof tiles and the association reported flashing leaks at a November 2017 meeting, attributing them to wind-driven rain. Wild Oak Bay did not file its claim until July 2020, nearly three years after landfall. The insurer moved for summary judgment,
arguing the notice was not prompt and that the delay prejudiced its investigation. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the notice untimely as a matter of law and that nothing in the record overcame the clear prejudice resulting from the 1,053-day delay. The Second District affirmed on the notice issue. The undisputed evidence showed that displaced tiles and reported leaks appeared shortly after the storm. That was enough to lead a reasonable person to believe a claim would arise, regardless of whether the full extent of the damage was known. The Court reversed on the prejudice issue. The policy conditioned denial of coverage on the insurer proving prejudice across all listed post-loss duties, including prompt notice. The Second District held that this language removes the common law presumption of prejudice and places the burden on the insurer to prove it. Applying a presumption under those circumstances rewrites the contract. The Court certified conflict with the Third District’s decision in Arce v. Citizens Property Insurance Co., which held that no policy language exception to the presumption exists. Whether American Coastal actually proved prejudice remained a disputed question of fact requiring resolution on remand. On the settlement issue, the Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling striking SFR’s acceptance of American Coastal’s pre-suit settlement offer. SFR did not accept the offer until fifteen days after summary judgment was entered. Entry of judgment terminated the offer, and acceptance after that point was invalid.
Attorney’s Fees — Section 57.105 Findings Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Quality Mold Finders Corp., 3D25-0697 (3d DCA July 15, 2026) KK TAKEAWAY: A section 57.105 attorney’s fees sanction requires specific findings that the claim or defense was not supported by the material facts or existing law when it was initially presented. Without those findings, the award cannot stand.
BACKGROUND: Following a stipulated dismissal, the trial court awarded Quality Mold Finders $12,025.00 in attorney’s fees against Citizens under section 57.105(1). Citizens appealed, arguing the trial court failed to make the findings required by the statute. The Third District reversed. Section 57.105(1) requires the court to find that the losing party knew or should have known, when the claim or defense was initially presented, that it was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish it or by the application of then-existing law to those facts. The trial court made no such findings. Without them, the award could not stand and the case was remanded. IN THE
NOW | 9
Ensuing Loss — Conflicting Evidence Robertaud Toussaint v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 3D24-1344 (3d DCA July 1, 2026) KK TAKEAWAY: Where conflicting evidence exists at trial on whether ensuing damage is covered, a verdict against the insured will be upheld. The insured bears the burden of proving covered ensuing damage by the greater weight of the evidence.
BACKGROUND: Toussaint filed a declaratory judgment action seeking coverage for damage to his roof. The jury found the claimed damage was excluded
10 | IN THE
NOW
as the result of wear, tear, and deterioration. On the ensuing damage question, the jury found Toussaint did not prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the ensuing damage was covered under the policy. Toussaint moved for a new trial on the ensuing damage issue only, arguing no evidence supported the verdict against him. The Third District affirmed. The trial transcripts reflected conflicting evidence on the ensuing damage question, including inconsistencies in Toussaint’s own testimony and disagreement between the parties’ expert witnesses. Where conflicting evidence is presented at trial, an appellate court cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a new trial motion. The Appellate Court also noted that the jury instructions and verdict form were proposed by Toussaint himself. The jury was asked, on a form of Toussaint’s own making, whether he proved by the greater weight of the evidence that the ensuing damage was covered. It found he did not.
Pre-Suit Notice — Retroactivity Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Endrina Maria Montilva Davila and Rafael Molina, 4D2025-0848 (July 22, 2026) KK TAKEAWAY: Section 627.70152’s pre-suit notice requirement applies to policies in existence on July 1, 2021, including policies that expired before the statute’s effective date.
BACKGROUND: The homeowners filed suit against Universal without first providing the Department of Financial Services with written notice of intent to initiate litigation as required by section 627.70152. Universal moved to dismiss. The homeowners argued the statute did not apply because their policy expired
one month before the July 1, 2021, effective date. The trial court denied the motion and ultimately entered final judgment for the homeowners after a jury trial. The Fourth District reversed. Bound by its prior decisions in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. and Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Griffin, the Court held that the amendments effective July 1, 2021, apply to policies in existence on that date. A policy that expired shortly before the effective date does not fall outside the statute’s reach. On remand, the trial court was directed to dismiss the case without prejudice. Note: This issue remains the subject of a district conflict. The First District reached the opposite conclusion in Priest v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 1D2024-1577 (May 20, 2026), holding the statute does not apply retroactively to pre-July 2021 policies. That conflict is pending before the Florida Supreme Court.
IN THE
NOW | 11
Loss Settlement — Replacement Cost Value / Conflict Certified Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Reese F. King and Janice A. King, 6D20240241 (6th DCA July 24, 2026) KK TAKEAWAY: The Sixth District affirms RCV recovery and certifies conflict with the Fourth District’s decision in Qureshi on the question of when an insured is entitled to recover replacement cost value. The law on this issue is unsettled across districts.
12 | IN THE
NOW
BACKGROUND: This case involved a fully denied plumbing claim. The major issue in this case involved jury instructions related to the insurer seeking a jury instruction relating to the Actual Cash Value of the loss. This request was denied and the case went to verdict. The trial court entered final judgment in favor of the Kings, including recovery of the replacement cost value of their insured loss. The insurer filed a motion for new trial predicated and same was denied. Universal appealed. The Sixth District affirmed, relying on its own prior decision in Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Rodriguez. The Court simultaneously certified conflict with the Fourth District’s decision in Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Qureshi, which reached a different result on RCV recovery. This case and issue is now up at the Florida Supreme Court. Adjusters handling RCV claims should monitor this issue, as the applicable rule currently depends on which district the claim is litigated in.
Florida Insurance Guaranty Association — Attorney’s Fees Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, Inc. v. Ray Wilson, 4D2025-0232 (July 8, 2026)
BACKGROUND: After the insured’s carrier denied his property damage claim, the insured filed suit and sought attorney’s fees under section 627.428. The insured and the carrier settled for $65,000, structured as two checks: $43,500 to the insured and $21,500 to his attorneys. Before payment was made, the carrier became insolvent and FIGA was substituted as defendant. FIGA paid only a portion of the settlement and refused to pay the $21,500, contending it represented statutory attorney’s fees that did not constitute a covered claim under the FIGA statutes.
KK TAKEAWAY: FIGA is not obligated to pay attorney’s fees arising under section 627.428 unless the fees fall within the coverage of the underlying insurance policy.
KK TAKEAWAY: A settlement that expressly states it is inclusive of any claim for attorney’s fees, combined with a separate payment earmarked to counsel, is sufficient to establish that the payment was for statutory fees rather than covered claims.
The Fourth District reversed the trial court’s order requiring FIGA to pay the balance. Under Petty v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, a covered claim must arise from and be within the coverage of the underlying policy. Attorney’s fees under section 627.428 arise by statute, not from the policy itself, and are not a covered claim unless the policy expressly provides for them. The subject policy did not. The settlement agreement expressly stated it was inclusive of any claim for attorney’s fees and directed a separate payment to counsel. That was sufficient to establish the $21,500 was for statutory fees. FIGA was not required to pay it.
IN THE
NOW | 13
14 | IN THE
NOW
Florida Insurance Guaranty Association — Attorney’s Fees / Pre-Insolvency Settlement Florida Insurance Guaranty Association v. Albert Broome and Deborah Broome, 6D2025-1813 (6th DCA July 10, 2026) KK TAKEAWAY: Pre-insolvency attorney’s fees do not constitute covered claims under section 631.54(4). FIGA is not required to pay attorney’s fees allocated in a pre-insolvency settlement agreement between the insured and the insolvent carrier.
arising out of and within the coverage of the underlying insurance policy. Pre-insolvency attorney’s fees accrue before FIGA is ever substituted into the case and do not result from FIGA denying a covered claim. They arise from a post-loss settlement agreement between the insured and the former carrier, not from coverage within the policy. FIGA was directed to pay only the $9,386.69 allocated for covered claims. The Court also held that FIGA is not liable for pre-judgment interest under the plain language of section 631.57(1) (b).
Void Judgment — Substituted Service Kambiz Zadeh v. Aegis Security Insurance Company, 3D25-2059 (3rd DCA July 22, 2026 KK TAKEAWAY:
BACKGROUND: After the Broomes’ insurer became insolvent, FIGA was substituted as defendant. The Broomes sought to enforce a pre-insolvency settlement agreement that allocated $9,386.69 for covered claims and $35,613.31 for attorney’s fees. The trial court granted the motion and ordered FIGA to pay the full settlement amount. The Sixth District reversed in part. FIGA is obligated only to pay covered claims, defined under section 631.54(4) as unpaid claims
A default judgment entered on substituted service is void where Plaintiff never filed the affidavit of compliance required by section 48.161(1). Substituted service is an exception to personal service, and strict compliance with the statute is required to protect due process.
KK TAKEAWAY: Once a judgment is shown to be void, the trial court has no discretion to leave it standing. Whether a judgment is void is reviewed de novo, and a prior pro se motion does not bar a later, properly framed motion for relief unless IN THE
NOW | 15
the same service or jurisdictional issue was actually litigated the first time.
BACKGROUND: Plaintiff sued to enforce a surety bond indemnification agreement and attempted substituted service through the Florida Secretary of State under section 48.062. Plaintiff never filed the statutorily required affidavit of compliance for substitute service. e. A default judgment was entered. The
16 | IN THE
NOW
defendant later moved to vacate under rule 1.540(b)(4), arguing the judgment was void for defective service. Plaintiff argued an earlier pro se motion should have foreclosed the issue. The Third District held the missing affidavit rendered the judgment void, that void judgments must be vacated once identified since the trial court has no discretion to do otherwise, and that the earlier pro se motion did not bar the later motion. Reversed and remanded to vacate the default judgment.
The Kelley Kronenberg Difference Our strength lies in our ability to see the bigger picture while managing the finest details. We combine the resources and capabilities of a large firm with the personalized attention and agility of a boutique practice. By leveraging diverse expertise as one cohesive team, we provide more comprehensive and strategic guidance than traditional law firms.
IN THE
NOW | 17
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.
18 | 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 | 19
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.
20 | 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 | 21
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 523 employees, 237 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 | 23
WWW.KKLAW.COM | 800.484.4381