.

Orlando

Marshall Dennehey's Orlando office is situated in the heart of downtown, overlooking Lake Eola. The Orlando office is mere blocks from state and federal courthouses and ideally positioned to service clients throughout central and northeast Florida. Its reach includes Jacksonville, Ocala, Gainesville, Daytona, the Space Coast, I-4 corridor and all points between. The Orlando office provides experienced legal representation in venues including the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and the state Circuit Courts of Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Volusia, Flagler, St. Johns, Duval, Nassau, Clay, Putnam, Marion, Alachua, Lake, Polk, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach and Okeechobee Counties.

The Orlando office practices aggressive, well-prepared defense litigation by lawyers who are accessible and who practice and pride themselves on client relations. Its breadth of experience includes the successful defense of wrongful death, catastrophic injury, product liability, motor vehicle liability, alcohol liability, defamation and a wide range of premises liability cases. These include slip and fall, malicious prosecution, false arrest, negligent security, construction defect and elevator/escalator incidents. In addition, the office has distinguished itself in the defense of theme parks and issues relating to wild animals, amusement rides and crowd control.

Thought Leadership

View all

Case Law Alerts

Florida Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal with Prejudice of a Claim Against Lyft Based on Statutory Immunity

July 20, 2026

Plaintiff, Louise Haddad, sued Lyft for damages after allegedly being assaulted by her Lyft driver. The plaintiff asserted claims for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation against Lyft based on statements from its website which led her to believe the ride would be safe. Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of her claims with prejudice, finding that they were barred by the broad immunity conferred to Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) under § 631.918, Florida Statutes. To plead an exception to TNC immunity, the plaintiff would have to allege sufficient facts, such as a violation of antitrust laws, bad faith, malicious purpose, or wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property. Since the plaintiff failed to adequately plead an exception, the court found her claims were barred by Florida’s TNC immunity statute. This case highlights the importance of legislative immunity in defending rideshare cases even at the pleadings stage.

Case Law Alerts

Florida Appellate Court Reverses Summary Judgment, Holding Commercial Landlord Had a Duty to Investigate Roof Leak

July 20, 2026

The District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's entry of summary judgment, holding that the commercial landlord owed a duty of reasonable care to investigate a roof leak. Plaintiff, Scott Hale, managed a Domino's Pizza operating on premises leased from Sleiman Enterprises, Inc., slipped and fell on water that had leaked from the roof into the kitchen. Because the lease permitted only Sleiman to access the roof, Domino's could not investigate the source and instead reported the leak to Sleiman. The trial court granted summary judgment for Sleiman, reasoning that the lease required Domino's to maintain the allegedly defective hood vent and that Sleiman therefore owed no duty. The appellate court reversed, holding that Sleiman owed a duty of reasonable care because its exclusive control over roof access foreseeably created a zone of risk and prevented Domino's from discovering or repairing the source of the leak. The court held that the lease provision assigning hood vent maintenance to Domino's did not relieve Sleiman of that duty, and it rejected the argument that the danger was open and obvious, noting that an obvious danger discharges only the duty to warn, not the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. The ruling reinforces that a landlord's retained exclusive control over an area can support a duty notwithstanding a tenant's contractual maintenance obligations.

Results

View all

Sex Trafficking and Abuse Claims Against Hotel Successfully Dismissed

We were successful in having all claims against our client’s hotel dismissed. This case involved deeply distressing allegations of sex trafficking and abuse by the plaintiff’s mother, occurring when the plaintiff was a minor. The claims against our client’s hotel were brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and Florida law. While the court was unequivocal in acknowledging the tragic and serious nature of the plaintiff’s allegations against her abusers, it ultimately found that the legal claims against our client were not supported by sufficient factual allegations to state a cause of action under either federal or state law. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint without prejudice. However, upon review of the amended complaint, the court agreed with our renewed motion to dismiss and concluded that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that our hotel knowingly participated in a trafficking venture or maintained a continuous business relationship with the traffickers. The amended complaint alleged only a single instance of trafficking at our client’s hotel and asserted that the conduct was so blatant that hotel staff should have recognized it. The court found this insufficient to support a claim under the TVPRA. Additionally, the court found that the allegations did not meet the high legal threshold required to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Florida law.

Summary Judgment Secured in a Slip-and-Fall Premises Liability Case

We were granted final summary judgment in a slip-and-fall premises liability case. The plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on an unidentified wet substance while waiting in line at the defendant’s convenience store. The plaintiff admitted she did not see the substance prior to her fall and did not know what it was, where it came from or how long it had been there. She testified that the wetness appeared to have been tracked in by other customers, noting their shoes were wet. We moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not meet her burden under § 768.0755, Fla. Stat., to prove that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged condition. Surveillance footage showed multiple customers walking through the area without issue, and no visible hazard appeared on video. The court agreed and granted final summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the case with prejudice.

News

View all

Events

View all

Speaking Engagement

International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) Corporate Counsel Committee Webinar

April 9, 2026

Peggy Smith Bush

Firm Highlights

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Holds That a Claimant Who Was Struck By a Car While Crossing the Street During an Unpaid Break Was In the Course and Scope of Employment

This case involved a claim petition filed by a claimant who sustained injuries after being struck by a vehicle while crossing the street in front of the employer’s premises. The employer denied the claim based on course and scope, as the accident occurred during one of two mandatory fifteen (15) minute breaks provided to the claimant. The claimant would punch out at the beginning of a break and punch back in when the break was over.  On the date of the incident, the claimant punched out and left the building to get lunch at a restaurant, which required her to cross the employer’s parking lot, and then a public street, where the injury occurred. The Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ) dismissed the petition, noting that that during the two mandatory fifteen-minute breaks per shift allowed by the employer, the claimant was free to leave the employer’s premises, and during breaks, permitted to engage in whatever activity she desired. The WCJ found that at the time of the accident, the claimant was on her own time, in the middle of the street, and going to get lunch.   The claimant filed an appeal with the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board), and the Board reversed.  According to the Board, the claimant’s location was still on the employer’s premises, as the claimant was taking her customary route while using a reasonable ingress/egress from the employer.  Further, the Board found that the “Personal Comfort Doctrine” applied, as the claimant was on a momentary departure to take care of her personal comfort, within the window of time she was allotted for her break.  The Board remanded the case, and a WCJ granted the claim petition.  The Board affirmed, and the employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Before the Court, the employer argued that the claimant was not in the course and scope of her employment, because the injury did not occur on its premises, and the claimant was outside the bounds of the Personal Comfort Doctrine. The Court, however, rejected these arguments, and dismissed the employer’s appeal.  The Court noted that the break given to the claimant was so cursory, when she set out to relieve her hunger for her own personal comfort,  she remained in the course of her employment when she sustained her injuries.  A Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the Supreme Court has been filed by the Employer, Giant Eagle.

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Thought Leadership

Not So Fast. . . The Limitations of the Pennsylvania RELRA in Plaintiffs’ Civil Actions Against Real Estate Broker and Licensee Defendants

Much has been made of the importance and weight of the Pennsylvania Real Estate Licensing and Registration Act, 63 P.S. §§ 455.101, et. seq. (RELRA or Act). After all, a real estate broker generally cannot recover any commission absent a signed agreement that complies with RELRA. But can a plaintiff rely on RELRA as a distinct cause of action in a civil action as to a real estate broker or licensee defendant? The Superior Court has emphatically held that he or she cannot. In the unpublished opinion P. Perez Real Est. Holdings, LLC et. al. v. Home Sale Real Est. Servs., Inc., et al., No. 256 MDA 2025, 2025 WL 35389888 (Pa. Super. Ct. December 10, 2025), the Superior Court held that the Act “does not contemplate private actions for money damages as an enforcement mechanism and consequently, does not create a private cause of action.” citing Schwarzwaelder v. Fox, 895 A.2d 614, 620 (Pa. Super. 2006). While the Act authorizes the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, State Real Estate Commission, to regulate the conduct governed by RELRA, the Act alone does not create a stand-alone legal cause of action as to a broker-defendant in a civil action. See P. Perez, citing Schwarwaelder at 620. Nor can it be stated that RELRA creates or imposes any legally cognizable duties on real estate brokers or licensees. While the Act contains and refers to general concepts of duty (e.g. the agent must “exercise reasonable professional skill and care which meets the practice standards required by this act” and “to deal honestly and in good faith” 63 P.S. §§606.1 (a)(1),(2), or the broker has a duty to the buyer of property to take “action that is consistent with the buyer’s interest in transaction.”  63 P.S. §§606.3 (1)), these general concepts are secondary to the duties imposed by the required written agreement between the broker and consumer. For example, in P. Perez, a case in which the buyers-plaintiffs argued that the real estate broker failed to investigate recent legislation that would affect buyer’s intentions to convert the property to commercial space, the agreement between buyer and broker contained the following provision in the “Buyer’s Due Diligence” clause: Buyer acknowledges that Brokers, their licensees, employees, officers or partners have not made an independent examination or determination of the structural soundness of the property, the age or condition of the components, environmental conditions, the permitted uses, nor of conditions existing in the locale where the property is situated. . . Accordingly, the broker defendants expressly disclaimed any duty to buyers to inform them or determine whether any applicable zoning classifications, laws, or ordinances in the township applied to the properties in question. Moreover, the Superior Court refused to read provisions of the Act into the Agreement, citing Skiff re Buss, Inc. v. Buckingham Review, LP, 991 A.2d 956 (Pa. Super. 2010). In defending civil actions it is important for the defense attorney to identify any causes of action predicated solely on RELRA. Preliminary objections may be warranted to the extent that the plaintiff asserts RELRA as a stand-alone cause of action for monetary damages, a position struck down by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in P. Perez.  Moreover, any attempt to create or heighten duties as to the broker defendants may be countered by the general proposition that the courts will not inject the vague concepts of “reasonable professional skill” or “good faith” where the written agreement has express provisions regarding the duties of the parties. Ironically, although RELRA is an important Act with which all realtors, brokers, and licensees should be familiar to guarantee that their commissions are in fact timely paid, it is not a strong stand-alone mechanism for a plaintiff’s attempts to recover monetary damages in a civil action.

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Superior Court Confirms RESDL Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Repose

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently concluded that claims under the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law (“RESDL”) are subject to a two-year statute of repose running from the settlement date. This decision will further assist defending errors and omission claims against real estate agents as it bars any RESDL action commenced more than two years after the settlement date regardless of when the defect was discovered.  In Hollinger v. Deitrich, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 328 (June 23, 2026), the buyers entered into an agreement of sale in April of 2017 to purchase a residential property. The settlement occurred in June of 2017. The buyers reviewed the seller disclosures that revealed the property had a sump pump in working order and a sump pit. The disclosures further noted no water infiltration into the basement, but disclosed rehab, an addition to the property and prior sewage backup.  Shortly after the settlement and closing, the buyers experienced flooding in their basement. In March of 2020, the buyers filed suit against the seller, the buyers’ real estate agent and broker and the seller’s real estate agent and broker alleging various causes of action including a violation of RESDL. The buyers alleged that they sought assurances from the agent defendants that no water infiltration occurred on the property. They further alleged that both agents lived in the area and should have known about the neighborhood water infiltration issues. The trial court granted summary judgment for the seller and the seller’s agents and dismissed the RESDL violation.  Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gidor v. Mangus d/b/a Mangus Inspections, 345 A.3d 629 (Pa. 2025), the court explained that a statute of limitation begins to run from the time of the injurious occurrence or a discovery of the same. However, a statute of repose runs for a statutorily determined period after a definitively established event. Notably, a statute of repose eliminates a cause of action regardless of when the claim accrues. Because of this, a plaintiff may not invoke the discovery rule or other equitable tolling considerations.  RESDL requires that an action for damages, as a result of a violation of this chapter, must be commenced within two years after the date of final settlement. The court found that Section 7311(b) was clear and unambiguous that an action for damages pursuant to this chapter must be commenced within a certain time after a definitely established event that is independent of any injury or discovery of any injury. Since the buyers sued over two years after closing on the property, their statutory claims were time-barred. The court explained that the seller disclosure statement could not support common law or consumer protection claims, as using it would improperly expand remedies beyond the statute’s terms. Accordingly, the court upheld the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that the buyers’ claims under RESDL were barred by the statute of repose.  Accordingly, defense counsel should scrutinize complaints involving RESDL claims to ensure that such claims have been timely brought within two-years of the settlement date. A plaintiff will no longer be able to invoke the discovery roll to expand the time frame.

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial