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
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).
Kelley Kronenberg Secures Complete Defense Verdict in Hurricane Ian Property Case
Kelley Kronenberg Secures Defense Verdict for USAA in Contentious Stolen Jewelry Trial
Kelley Kronenberg Secures Summary Judgment in Heavily Investigated Roof Damage Claim
Jake D. Huxtable Partner/Business Unit Leader
Ryan J. Galka Senior Trail Counsel
Daniel Montgomery Partner/Business Unit Leader
Jake D. Huxtable Partner/Business Unit Leader
Jeffrey M. Wank Chair, First-Party Property and Insurance Coverage Division Patricia Repanova Practice Partner
Expert Qualifications
Jose R. D. Cardenas, et al., v. White Pine Ins. Co., 3d23-0195 (3d DCA Mar. 31, 2026)
KK TAKEAWAY:
There is no requirement for an expert to have a degree. An expert can qualify based on relevant skills, experience, and training.
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.
BACKGROUND:
This case involved the trial court’s order granting summary judgment based on its decision to strike the insured’s expert for: 1) experience as a roofer but not an engineer; 2) lack of information regarding the condition of the property prior to the loss; and 3) lack of information regarding hurricane force winds creating an opening in the roof. The trial court also expressed concern about the roofer’s ability to speak to the causation of the stucco cracks.
The Third District Court of Appeals reversed the order granting summary judgment on two grounds:
• Daubert sets minimum standards and does not require the expert to have the same level of qualifications as another expert. Further, the qualifications can be based on relevant skills, experience, and training.
• While a trial court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing, it is usually the best option for the trial court to make adequate findings and ensure it does not substitute its judgment for that of a jury.
While the insured’s expert was not a professional engineer, he had 44 years of experience as a roofer. While the trial court focused on the fact that the roofer did not provide an express opinion on a peril-created opening, the affidavit did discuss how stucco cracks arose from wind and water penetrated those cracks.
FIGA Obligations
Florida Insurance Guaranty Association v. Steve Cadet, 4d2024-2631 (4th DCA Mar. 18, 2026)
KK TAKEAWAY:
FIGA’s policy does not include coverage for attorney’s fees and costs for a claim settled prior to receivership, but not paid.
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.
BACKGROUND:
In this case, FIGA sought review after a trial court granted a motion to enforce a settlement against FIGA. The underlying settlement was made by an insolvency insurer during a mediation. The Fourth District held that FIGA, as a statutory creation, cannot be compelled to pay obligations its policy does not cover. FIGA’s policy does not cover attorneys’ fees and costs. 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.
Notice of Intent – Fourth District Stands Firm on its Cole Decision
Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Jada Griffin, 4d20241332 (4th DCA Feb. 25, 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.
Policy Limitations – Sixth District Court of Appeals
Weighs in on When Replacement Cost Coverage Can be Sought Compared to Actual Cash Value.
BACKGROUND:
The trial resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the insureds for replacement cost value. The insurer previously filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude any evidence of damages to actual cash value, even though the claim was denied. At trial, the insureds testified they did not perform any repairs. During the trial, the trial court denied the motion in limine and overruled objections to the presentation of replacement-cost-value evidence.
On appeal, the Sixth District Court of Appeals acknowledged the Second, Third, and Fourth Districts have opined on the issue:
Second District “Brito Opinion” and Third District “Tio Opinion” - When a claim is denied, the insured can seek replacement cost.
Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Nelson Rodriguez and Yoseida Cuevas, 6D2024-1194 (6th DCA Feb. 6, 2026 )
KK TAKEAWAY:
Sixth DCA joins Second and Third DCAs requiring RCV damages on denied claims.
KK TAKEAWAY:
First DCA holds that price and scope disputes are limited to actual cash value where insureds do not complete repairs or do not provide an actual cash value estimate
KK TAKEAWAY:
Fourth DCA holds that replacement cost coverage is a condition of coverage and not available until repairs are made, regardless of denial of claim.
Fourth District “Querishi Opinion” – Allowing replacement cost value damages when repairs have not been completed effectively rewrites the terms of the policy.
The Sixth District quoted the Second District, asserting that when a claim is wrongfully denied, the full measure of damages should be allowed.
Notice Defense – When Policy Requires the Carrier to Prove Prejudice
Delsia Bryan-Wilson, Marvin Wilson and Delsia Grant v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 4d2024-1547 (4th DCA Dec. 17, 2025)
KK TAKEAWAY:
When the insurer has the burden to prove prejudice, they must do so.
KK TAKEAWAY:
Speculation about the scope of damage is insufficient when confronted with the facts that the insurer made a coverage decision, made a payment, and did not dispute the extent of loss.
BACKGROUND:
The verdict was returned in favor of the carrier, finding that a 58-day delay in reporting the claim prejudiced the investigation and thus forfeited coverage. This policy includes the following language “we have no duty to provide coverage under this policy if the [homeowners’] failure to comply with the following duties is prejudicial to us”. This is the same language the Fourth District required the insurer to use to prove prejudice, without the presumption in its favor.
Notably, the insurer inspected the property within one day of the report and issued payment based on that inspection. There was no dispute regarding the water damage, as it had been paid. The only issue was whether the investigation was prejudiced.
The Fourth District held that not knowing what happened during 58 days is not the same as the loss being aggravated or getting worse. The limited evidence of having no idea what happened for 58 days, and the speculated increase in water damage, is insufficient. There was no evidence to support the claim that the insurer conducted additional inspections or lacked the necessary information to make claim determinations; to the contrary, it did both within weeks.
Discovery – The Sixth District Court of Appeals Says No Prejudice
Inquiry Necessary for Late Disclosures.
Michael Crecelius v. Mildred Rizzitano, 6D2024-2217 (6th DCA Feb. 27, 2026)
KK TAKEAWAY:
Deadlines are not aspirations; the failure to comply with them results in exclusion without inquiry into prejudice.
BACKGROUND:
The Sixth District Court of Appeals gives its opinion on Binger Analysis on a latedisclosed expert. In the case on appeal, the
expert disclosure deadline was moved a few times, but ultimately set for February 10, 2024. Defendant did not provide its expert until March 18, 2024. Plaintiff sought to strike the experts as untimely, to which Defendant responded that interoffice mismanagement of deadlines resulted in the late disclosure. Defendant also argued that late disclosure would not prejudice the other parties.
The reports from Defendant’s experts were ultimately provided on March 29, 2024, for one expert and March 31, 2025 for another. The trial court found the untimeliness and basis for the late disclosures were egregious. The trial court struck the experts due to prejudice to the plaintiff in preparing their case.
The Sixth District held that the Binger Analysis was for trial courts to consider whether it would allow a late-disclosed expert, not a limitation on excluding one. The Sixth relied on recent rule changes, particularly case management orders under Rule 1.200, to demonstrate a trial court’s authority to exclude discovery for noncompliance.
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. 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
