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
Kimberly J. Fernandes Partner
Tallahassee | Atlanta T: (850) 577-1301 kfernandes@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).
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)
Daniel Montgomery
Partner
Jacksonville
T: (904) 549-7700
dmontgomery@kklaw.com
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”).
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).
Austin Miniard Partner
NIcole W. Lazaroff
Jordan H. Lande Partner/Business Unit Leader
Jeffrey M. Wank Chair, First-Party Property and Insurance Coverage Division
Patricia Repanova Practice Partner
COMPANY, 1D2024-3044 (MAY 6, 2026)
Pre-Suit Notice — Retroactivity – Conflict Between First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Districts Prohibition of Retroactive Application to Third and Fourth District Application When Filed MARY PRIEST V. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, 1D2024-1577 (1ST DCA MAY 20, 2026) 7
Pre-Suit Notice — Retroactivity UNIVERSAL PROP. & CAS. INS. CO.V. JADA GRIFFIN, NO. 4D2024-1332 (4TH
Pre-Suit Notice – Required for Every Case YARIMA MORENO V. PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, NO. 4D2024-1181 (4TH DCA MAY 13, 2026) .
Loss Settlement — Actual Cash Value HAROLD GREENAKER AND LISA GREENAKER V. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 2D2024-1964 (2D DCA MAY 8, 2026) )
Post-Loss Obligations — Presumption of Prejudice UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY V. YUNIA ALVAREZ, 3D24-1853 (3D DCA MAY 13, 2026 .
Arbitration — Citizens/DOAH HUY HIEN TANG, ET AL. V. CITIZENS
(3D DCA APRIL 8, 2026)
Nonbinding Arbitration — Rejection is Subject to Strict Compliance YASMANI SANCHEZ V. PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, 3D25-0336 (3D DCA MAY 13, 2026)
Trial - Juror Nondisclosure During Voir Dire CITIZENS PROP. INS. CORP. V. ALEJANDRO LUZARDO VILLASMIL & ANTHONY JOSE FERRER, NO.: 4D2024-2947 (4TH DCA APRIL 15, 2026)
Statute of Limitations
HYPOLUXO MARINER’S CAY CONDO ASSOC., INC. V.UNDERWRITERS AT LLYOD’S LONSON, NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. AND QBE SPECIALITY INS. CO., NO. 4D2024-2250
NO.: 6D2024-1283 (6TH DCA APRIL 2, 2026)
AOB Challenges
Super Green Air Control, LLC
a/a/o Karen Roshell v. Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 1D2024-3044 (May 6, 2026)
KK TAKEAWAY:
An AOB and a separate invoice executed on the same date can be read together to satisfy the written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate requirement of section 627.7152.
KK TAKEAWAY:
A per-unit cost estimate is not required when the facts support the services are for single service.
BACKGROUND:
The insured’s home sustained damage from Hurricane Sally. The insured hired a contractor to test for mold and remediate the home, executing an AOB authorizing the contractor to bill the insurer directly. The contractor submitted an AOB and a same-date invoice listing an environmental testing protocol at $995 and a clearance test at $795. The insurer moved to dismiss, arguing the invoice did not satisfy the written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate requirement of section 627.7152. The county court agreed and dismissed the action.
The First District reversed, reading the AOB and invoice together as they were executed and submitted together. The Court found the invoice described the work to be performed and its cost, and that the reference to additional samples provided sufficient context for the scope of the work. The Court also rejected the insurer’s argument that the invoice was defective for failing to state a number of units, finding no evidence of multiple units at the address.
Pre-Suit Notice
— Retroactivity –Conflict
between First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Districts Prohibition of Retroactive Application to Third and Fourth District Application When Filed
BACKGROUND:
The insured’s homeowners policy renewed in January 2021. After sustaining wind and water damage, she filed suit for breach of contract without first filing a pre-suit notice of intent under section 627.70152, Florida Statutes. The trial court dismissed the case.
The First District reversed, holding the statute does not clearly express legislative intent to apply retroactively to policies issued before its effective date. The Court found the phrase “all suits” defines the category of cases governed by the provision, not its temporal reach, and that the Legislature’s use of “suits” rather than “policies” further supports a prospective reading.
Mary Priest v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 1D20241577 (1st DCA May 20, 2026)
KK TAKEAWAY:
Section 627.70152’s pre-suit notice requirement does not apply retroactively to policies issued before its July 1, 2021 effective date.
KK TAKEAWAY:
It is not the trial court’s role to weigh competing expert evidence; it is the role of the trial court to ensure expert testimony complies with the Daubert standard, which sets the minimum requirements.
The First District certified conflict with the Third District’s decision in Cantens and the Fourth District’s decision in Cole, both of which held the statute applies retroactively. The Sixth, Second, and Fifth Districts have aligned with the First District. The issue is pending before the Florida Supreme Court. Adjusters working files involving policies issued before July 1, 2021 should monitor this issue closely, as the applicable rule currently depends on which district the claim is litigated in.
Pre-Suit Notice — Retroactivity
Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.v. Jada Griffin, No. 4D2024-1332 (4th DCA April 22, 2026)
KK TAKEAWAY:
The notice of intent statute applies to when a case was filed, not when the policy was issued.
BACKGROUND:
This case involved a water damage claim under a policy period of January 22, 2020 through January 22, 2021, a period before the presuit notice statute became effective. The trial court did not dismiss the action for failure to comply with presuit notice, and ultimately, a jury rendered a verdict in the insured’s favor.
The Fourth District was invited to consider the Hughes decision from the Sixth District Court of Appeals under the premise that the policy was issued and expired prior to the effective date of the notice of intent statute, thus section 627.70152, Florida Statutes could not apply to a policy that was not “in existence” when it became effective.
The Fourth District rejected this claim, standing firm on its position that the notice statute applied retroactively to all cases filed after the effective date of the statute. The Fourth District rejected the “in existence” claim as the policy applied to losses during the policy term and sought to read Cole too narrowly. The statute applies retroactively to all suits filed after its effective date, regardless of whether the policy had already expired.
Pre-Suit Notice –Required for Every Case
Yarima Moreno v. People’s Trust Insurance Company, No. 4D20241181 (4th DCA May 13, 2026)
KK TAKEAWAY:
NOI Statute is not a simple notice of claim statute; it is a pre-suit settlement demand statute. .
KK TAKEAWAY:
A notice filed before the first suit cannot include attorney’s fees incurred during the first suit. Thus, a settlement demand provided before filing the second lawsuit would necessarily include any damages, fees, and costs incurred after the first lawsuit was filed.
KK TAKEAWAY:
Trial court correctly adopted the insurer’s suit-specific statutory interpretation and properly dismissed the second lawsuit for failure to comply with the pre-suit notice statute.
BACKGROUND:
An insured submitted a claim for property insurance benefits, in which it was alleged that the insurer failed to pay in full and subsequently filed a notice of intent to initiate litigation in accordance with Section 627.70152(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The
insured filed her first lawsuit and ultimately filed a voluntary dismissal. She later re-filed an identical lawsuit without submitting a new notice of intent to initiate litigation. The insurer moved to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that the insured failed to comply with the pre-suit notice requirement arguing that the requirement was suit specific. In response, the insured claimed that her first notice of intent was sufficient to bring the second lawsuit. The trial court dismissed the case without prejudice. The Fourth DCA affirmed.
Loss Settlement — Actual Cash Value
Harold Greenaker and Lisa Greenaker v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 2D2024-1964 (2d DCA May 8, 2026)
KK TAKEAWAY:
Actual cash value includes labor and other intangible costs. The distinction between actual cash value and replacement cost value is depreciation, not the category of costs included.
KK TAKEAWAY:
A motion in limine cannot be used as a substitute for a motion for summary judgment to dispose of a case before trial. made a payment, and did not dispute the extent of loss.
BACKGROUND:
The insureds filed suit after their home sustained storm damage, alleging Universal failed to pay all covered damages. Universal moved in limine to exclude all damages evidence, arguing the insureds’ estimate reflected replacement cost value, not actual cash value, because repairs had not been completed. The trial court agreed, excluded all damages evidence, and entered final judgment in Universal’s favor without a trial.
The Second District reversed on two grounds. First, the trial court improperly used the motion in limine as a substitute for summary judgment. A motion in limine is an evidentiary tool, not a recognized procedure for disposing of a case before trial. The Second District
made clear that a motion in limine is to be used for evidentiary issues, based on the evidence code. Meanwhile, a substantive ruling must be addressed via summary judgment or motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Second, the Court rejected the trial court’s definition of ACV as limited to the value of tangible damaged property only. Relying on Trinidad v. Florida Peninsula Insurance and Goff v. State Farm Florida Insurance, the Court held that labor, overhead, and profit are components of both ACV and RCV. An estimate that applies depreciation to physical materials while excluding labor from depreciation is consistent with an ACV calculation.
Post-Loss Obligations — Presumption
of Prejudice
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Yunia Alvarez, 3D24-1853 (3d DCA May 13, 2026)
KK TAKEAWAY:
The presumption of prejudice applies to all post-loss obligation defenses, not just the prompt notice defense
KK TAKEAWAY:
A verdict form that combines the material breach question and the prejudice question into a single compound question is improper under the Estrada burden-shifting framework.
BACKGROUND:
The insured filed suit against Universal for breach of contract arising out of a Hurricane Eta wind damage claim. At the start of trial, the court ruled the presumption of prejudice applied only to Universal’s prompt notice defense and not to its other post-loss obligation defenses. The evidence showed the insured failed to provide requested documents despite acknowledging awareness of the requests, and her uncle made repairs to the roof before Universal had an opportunity to inspect. The jury found for the insured and awarded $20,000.00.
The Third District reversed, reaffirming its holding in Estrada that the presumption of prejudice applies to any material breach of a post-loss obligation. Once an insurer establishes material breach, the burden shifts to the insured to show the insurer was not prejudiced. The trial court’s instruction limiting the presumption to prompt notice was an inaccurate statement of the law.
In a concurrence, Chief Judge Scales noted the verdict form was also improper. The form asked the jury in a single compound question whether Universal proved breach and prejudice together. Because Estrada employs a burden-shifting framework, the two questions must be presented separately on remand.
Arbitration
— Citizens/DOAH
Huy Hien Tang, et al. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, 3D25-0338 (3d DCA April 8, 2026)
KK TAKEAWAY:
The Carrier may compel arbitration before DOAH even after a full coverage denial. A denial alone does not waive the right to arbitrate.
KK TAKEAWAY:
Section 627.351(6) (ll) supersedes section 627.70154 for Citizens policies that include a DOAH arbitration endorsement.
BACKGROUND:
After Citizens denied the homeowners’ claim, the homeowners filed a pre-suit notice of intent to initiate litigation. Citizens responded simultaneously with a reiteration of its denial and a notice invoking its right to arbitration before DOAH. The homeowners moved to dispense with arbitration, arguing the pre-suit statutory scheme made the arbitration clause unenforceable and that the denial waived Citizens’ right to arbitrate. The trial court compelled arbitration.
The Third District affirmed. Section 627.351(6) (ll) expressly authorizes Citizens to adopt policy forms providing for dispute resolution before DOAH and supersedes section 627.70154. On the waiver issue, the Court held that a coverage denial is a prerequisite for arbitration under the policy, not an act inconsistent with it. Citizens moved immediately to arbitrate without taking further steps in litigation, and its conduct was consistent with its contractual and statutory rights.
Nonbinding Arbitration — Rejection is Subject
to Strict Compliance
Yasmani Sanchez v. People’s Trust Insurance Company, 3D250336 (3d DCA May 13, 2026)
KK TAKEAWAY:
To reject a non-binding arbitration decision, a party must file a notice of rejection and request for trial in the same document within 20 days of service of the arbitrator’s written decision. A motion for trial de novo alone is not sufficient.
KK TAKEAWAY:
Substantial compliance does not satisfy the strict requirements of rule 1.820(h).
BACKGROUND:
The insured filed suit against People’s Trust for breach of contract arising out of an alleged wind loss. The case was referred to non-binding arbitration, and the arbitrator found People’s Trust owed nothing. Two days later, the insured filed a motion for trial de novo citing the prior version of rule 1.820(h), which had been amended two months earlier. The motion contained no notice of rejection language. An amended motion
including rejection language was filed nearly two weeks after the 20-day deadline. The trial court entered final judgment adopting the arbitrator’s decision.
The Third District affirmed, joining the Fourth District’s decision in Hernandez. The amended rule 1.820(h) expressly states that no action or inaction, other than the filing of the notice of rejection, will be deemed a rejection of the arbitration decision. The argument that a motion for trial de novo necessarily implies rejection was rejected as contrary to the rule’s plain language. A proposed further amendment to rule 1.820(h) is currently pending before the Florida Supreme Court under case number SC2026-0040.
Trial - Juror Nondisclosure during Voir Dire
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. V. Alejandro Luzardo Villasmil & Anthony Jose Ferrer, No.: 4D2024-2947 (4th DCA April 15, 2026)
KK TAKEAWAY:
Voir dire nondisclosure claims require clear evidence of concealment and diligent questioning.
KK TAKEAWAY:
Evidentiary rulings (like admitting older inspection reports) are reviewed under abuse of discretion, a high bar for reversal.
BACKGROUND:
After the completion of a jury trial, an insurer discovered that four of the jurors had failed to appropriately disclose their history involving insurance claims. The insurer moved for a trial alleging that the jurors failed to proffer information relating to the claim and litigation history. The trial court denied the amended motion for new trial finding that the record was clear that questionnaire was unambiguous regarding the jurors’ involvement with the lawsuit, but absent as to the filing of insurance claims, and that the insurer had not demonstrated that the jurors had concealed information after applying the three factor test laid out in Da La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1995). The insurer appealed to the Fourth DCA, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the insurer failed to satisfy prongs 2) that the juror concealed the information during questioning; and 3) the failure to disclose the information was not attributable to the complaining’s party’s lack of diligence as set forth under Da La Rosa. The opinion cites Gamsen and Children’s Medical Center v. Kim to reinforce that failure to establish all elements defeats the claim.
Statute of Limitations
Hypoluxo Mariner’s Cay Condo Assoc., Inc. V.Underwriters at Llyod’s Lonson, National Fire & Marine Ins. Co. And QBE
Speciality Ins. Co., No. 4D20242250 (4th DCA April 1, 2026)
KK TAKEAWAY:
While statute of limitations defenses can be raised via motion to dismiss, it has to be apparent on the Complaint. When a Plaintiff alleges facts that support a claim of equitable relief from the statute of limitations, the issue goes beyond the pleadings.
BACKGROUND:
The Association insured its property through Underwriters at Lloyd’s London. Hurricane Irma (Sept 2017) damaged the roof and exterior of one building. Lloyd’s denied coverage, asserting late notice and failure to meet policy conditions. The Association filed suit in 2023, and the trial court dismissed the case as time barred. The trial court applied the five -year limitations period for written contracts, starting from the date of loss pursuant to section 95.11(2)(e). The Fourth DCA reversed finding the insured’s claim that the insurer delayed the process was sufficient to raise an issue of equitable relief. While the Court noted the applicable statute could be framed as a statute of repose, a bar regardless of knowledge of claim, that issue was not addressed at the trial court.
Trial – Jury Instructions
Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
V. Scott Liberatore and Cathy Knoblock, Case No.: 6D20241283 (6th DCA April 2, 2026)
KK TAKEAWAY:
The Sixth DCA confirms that materials integral to a home’s structure, even if beneath grade, may fall within dwelling coverage..
KK TAKEAWAY:
Jury instructions cannot be used as untimely motions for summary judgment.
KK TAKEAWAY:
Challenges to jury instructions must show actual prejudice, not mere disagreement with phrasing.
BACKGROUND:
This claim involved allegations of property damage from a plumbing leak. The jury found for the insureds; Universal challenged the jury instruction defining “structural fill.” Universal argues the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the structural fill was part of the dwelling and/or a material used in its construction, because it contended this was the equivalent of an unnoticed mid-trial summary judgment ruling in the insured’s favor. But Universal never objected to the lower court’s considering the issue at that
particular stage of the proceedings, nor did it ever argue that choosing the insured’s proposed instruction concerning the structural fill amounted to an unnoticed summary judgment. Even when the trial court itself later characterized the ruling as akin to a summary judgment, thereby potentially alerting the parties to that issue, Universal never objected to the instruction on that basis.
Coverage extended to “materials used in the construction of the dwelling.” Universal argued the instruction improperly broadened coverage. The Court held the jury instruction was consistent with policy language and supported by expert testimony. “Structural fill” was properly treated as part of the dwelling because it was integral to the home’s foundation. Further, when the trial court requested whether there was a factual dispute for the jury to determine whether the fill was part of the property or merely dirt, the insured claimed it was an issue of law. Meanwhile, Universal was silent on the issue. Universal did not object to the jury instruction, nor tried to correct the trial court’s interpretation. The trial court’s wording did not mislead the jury or create reversible error. Universal’s remaining arguments (including alleged evidentiary errors and denial of directed verdict) were rejected. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion and sufficient evidence supporting the verdict.
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.
Zachary A. Schiffman Practice Partner
Email Zachary A. Schiffman
Zachary Schiffman is a Practice Partner at Kelley Kronenberg, focusing his practice on first-party property and third-party matters. Zachary assists in representing property insurance carriers in complex coverage disputes and bad faith claims.
Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, Zachary practiced at a prominent multistate defense firm defending a broad range of cases ranging from automobile accidents, first-party property claims (commercial and residential), construction defect, claims, and premises liability cases. Before becoming a civil defense attorney, Zachary represented homeowners in commercial insureds in first-party disputes at a respected Plaintiff’s practice. As such, Zachary brings a unique perspective and provides an individualized approach to every case.
Zachary received his Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from the University of Central Florida, where he made Dean’s and President’s Lists. While at the University of Central Florida, Zachary was a member of Phi Alpha Delta, the Sports Business Club, and the National Society of Collegiate Scholars.
Zachary earned his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Miami School of Law, where he was an active member of the Business Law Society and the Cardozo Jewish Law Society. While in law school, Zachary clerked for a large and respected Plaintiff’s firm specializing in first-party property disputes.
Zachary enjoys spending time with family and friends outside of the office and watchingYankees games.
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 507 employees, 224 attorneys, and 19 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
BUFFALO
Regus Key Center Downtown
50 Fountain Plaza Buffalo, NY 14202
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
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
BY APPOINTMENT ONLY
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
WEST PALM BEACH
1501 Belvedere Road, Suite 500-504
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
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
SHORT HILLS
51 John F. Kennedy Parkway First Floor West
Short Hills, NJ 07078
Phone: (908) 403-8174
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:
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.
