.

Carolin A. Pacheco

Shareholder

CAPacheco@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Carolin A. Pacheco
As a member of the Professional Liability Department, Carolin Pacheco focuses a part of her practice on first-party insurance coverage claims, defending insurance carriers in a wide range of disputes. She also defends insurers in matters pertaining to coverage and bad faith claims, and assists them through pre-suit investigations and arbitrations.

Carolin also represents condominium association boards in directors and officers suits, as well as real estate agents, brokers and appraisers in errors and omissions claims. She also concentrates a portion of her practice, litigating FDCPA claims and suits brought by debtors, against the collection services assigned to recover the debt.

Before joining Marshall Dennehey, Carolin was an Assistant Public Defender with the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida in Orange and Osceola County. She focused her practice on criminal defense for indigent clients. During this time, she litigated various cases ranging from criminal traffic infractions to property damage and violent crimes from initial arrest to jury trial and sentencing.

Carolin graduated from the University of Central Florida in 2008 with a Bachelor of Arts in Legal Studies and earned her juris doctor from Stetson University College of Law in 2015.  While in law school, Carolin was a law clerk at a general civil litigation firm, where she worked on cases involving breach of contract, landlord-tenant law, and family law. She was also a law clerk for the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Middle District of Florida. Carolin had an active role in her law school's campus activities where she served as a Student Ambassador, she was the president of the Immigration Law Student Association and the secretary of the Hispanic Bar Student Association.

Outside her law practice, Carolin enjoys exploring Central Florida.

    • Stetson University College of Law (J.D., 2015)
    • University of Central Florida (B.S., 2008)
    • Florida, 2015
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida, 2019
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida, 2019
    • Spanish (Fluent)
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, Insurance Law (2021-2026)
    • Orange County Bar Association
    • National Creditors Bar Association

Results

View all

Summary Judgment Achieved in First-Party Coverage Lawsuit

We won summary judgment in the U.S.D.C. for the Middle District of Florida in a first-party coverage case challenging the prompt notice of an insurance claim. The plaintiff alleged extensive damage to the insured premises, including the alleged need to tear out and access the cast iron plumbing for its full replacement following a toilet overflow at the property. The plaintiff failed to report the loss for 20 months following the alleged date of loss. In a written motion, Carolin and Danielle argued that the plaintiff cannot rebut the presumption of prejudice because, at the time the insurance carrier investigated the loss, there was no actual damage to the property. The court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of our client.

Thought Leadership

View all

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Raise it or Waive it! In Order to Preserve Appeal, You Must Raise the Issues at the Trial Court Level

June 11, 2026

Homeowner's Choice Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Deborah Oakes No. 4D2024-1873, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D485a (Fla. 4th DCA March 18, 2026) The Fourth District Court of Appeals rendered an opinion finding that you must raise issues at the trial court level in order to preserve the issue for appeal, affirming the trial court’s final judgment. Through this opinion, the court provides an instructive examination of policy interpretation issues and further highlights the importance of preserving legal arguments at the trial level. Homeowners brought breach of contract action against property insurer Homeowners Choice in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, after the insurer denied coverage for damage to their house allegedly caused by an abrupt collapse. After trial of this breach of contract action, the court found, in reliance on holding by Fifth District Court of Appeals in Kings Ridge Community Ass'n v. Sagamore Insurance Co., that "additional collapse coverage" provided by policy could not be modified or qualified in any manner by other listed exclusions except those specifically contained within the "additional collapse" coverage provision. The magistrate issued a report and recommendation concluding that insured’s motion for partial summary judgment should be granted. The jury entered verdict in favor of insured and this appeal followed. On appeal, the insurer raised several issues concerning the interpretation of the insurance policy. However, the Fourth District Court found that the insurer's attorney failed to preserve these legal issues for appellate review during the trial proceedings. As noted within the opinion, one of the most common reasons behind a per curiam affirmance without written opinion is the appellant's failure to preserve issues for review. In this instance, the court was compelled to specifically address the preservation issue "to flesh out its requirements" as guidance for the bar. Namely, they examined the terms of the policy in detail specifically as to Section I, which contains four parts: (1) Property Coverages; (2) Perils Insured Against; (3) Exclusions; and (4) Conditions. The court paid special attention to the “Additional Coverages – Collapse” provision, as the policy expressly excludes collapse coverage except as provided in this section. The policy also includes endorsement that completely replaces the “Additional Coverages” section of the policy when a catastrophic ground cover collapse occurs. Ultimately, the court agreed with the  homeowner that the only exclusions that apply relative to the additional coverage for collapse are the exclusions that are expressly stated within the additional coverage provision, while insurer failed to provide a substantive argument against insured’s interpretation of the policy or against the applicability of Kings Ridge. In affirming  the trial court’s judgment, the Fourth District Court noted that even after having the opportunity to address the policy interpretation issues at a hearing on the insurer’s exceptions to the magistrate’s report before trial, the insurer failed to properly raise arguments against the homeowner’s policy interpretation and instead focused on issues of fact as to whether the collapse was abrupt. The insurer largely failed to refute the homeowner’s actual argument for partial summary judgment concerning the inapplicability of general exceptions or exclusions based on the policy language. The insurer made a different argument than the arguments it made to advance on appeal. On appeal, the insurer argued that the text and structure of the policy and “well-reasoned case law” demonstrate that the general exclusions apply to all coverages, including additional coverage. Further, the insurer argued that the reasoning in Kings Ridge was distinguishable. It is noteworthy that the insurer did not present the trial court with these arguments and thus failed to preserve the arguments for appellate review. The lesson the Fourth District Court seeks to provide in taking the time to write this opinion is that particularly when an insurer believes the policy language supports its coverage position, it must properly raise those arguments during trial or the risk waiver on appeal. Core legal arguments must be raised with clarity and specificity, and the court rejects that notion that vague comments can substitute for clear and specific legal objections.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Florida’s Fifth District Reaffirms Appellate Consensus on Assignment of Benefits Contract Requirements

March 1, 2026

The Kidwell Group LLC dba AQA aao John Fortner v Citizens Property, Case No. 5D2024-1843 (December 19, 2025) The Fifth District Court of Appeals rendered a decision further upholding the requirements set forth within Section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, finding valid an assignment of benefits, even though the insurance company argued that the assignment company’s purported paperwork was not detailed enough to satisfy the statutory requirements to render the contract valid and enforceable. The underlying action concerned an assignment of benefits that attached an invoice as its so-called “Itemized Per-Unit Cost Invoice" that consisted of assessment services to prepare an engineering report with a repair plan for an estimated $3,000. The assignment agreement stated that both parties acknowledged that the itemized per-unit cost estimate/invoice was legally binding. Citizens declined to pay and argued that the contract did not contain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services the assignee had to perform. The Kidwell Group filed suit, claiming that Citizens breached its insurance agreement by failing to pay for the engineer report. Citizens ultimately moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the assignment agreement was invalid because it failed to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)4. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice after a re-hearing. The court opined that the plaintiff’s assignment agreement and the incorporated invoice plainly comport with the dictates of section 627.7152(2)(a)4 – an engineer report with repair plan. In reaching its decision, the Fifth District noted that the trial judge who dismissed the case failed to follow the Fourth District's SafePoint decision, even though that ruling was binding precedent. Specifically citing to prior decisions from the Third and Fourth districts (In Kidwell Group, LLC v. SafePoint Insurance Co., 376 So. 3d 48, 51–52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)), where the Fourth District determined that identical language within The Kidwell Group’s assignment agreement and incorporated invoice was “sufficiently detailed” to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a). As it happens, the Third, Fourth, and Fifth District Courts are in agreement as to how to interpret section 627.7152(2)(a) as it pertains to similar engineering reports assignment agreements.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

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

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

PA Superior Court Upholds Household Vehicle Exclusion in Favor of Erie When Stacking Was Not Implicated

Key Points: A household vehicle exclusion was upheld under an Erie Policy when the estate of deceased insureds sought UIM coverage when the insureds were occupying a motorcycle owned by the insureds, but the motorcycle was not covered by Erie’s Policy. The PA Superior Court distinguished Gallagher v. GEICO, in which Gallagher, unlike the Erie insured, had recovered UM/UIM, thus rendering the "household exclusion" an impermissible waiver of stacking. Here, with no UIM recovery from any source, the issue of stacking, much less impermissible waiver of stacking, never arose. In sum, the household vehicle exclusion is a valid exclusion when stacking is not implicated. In the Pennsylvania Superior Court case of Erie Ins. Exchange v. Estate of Kennedy, 350 A.3d 219 (Pa. Super. 2025), the court upheld Erie’s denial of coverage under the household vehicle exclusion in the Erie Policy when the insureds were occupying a motorcycle not covered under the policy. Dennis and Elissa Kennedy, Erie insureds, died in a single-vehicle motorcycle accident, with Dennis driving. Dennis insured the motorcycle with Progressive, which paid its liability limits to Elissa, after which Elissa sought household stacked Erie UIM coverage. Erie denied coverage under its "household exclusion" applicable to vehicles owned by insureds, but not covered by Erie's policy. The trial court granted judgment in favor of Erie on the ground that such benefits were barred by an exclusion applicable when an insured has suffered damages while occupying a vehicle owned by a relative and not covered under the policy, i.e. the household vehicle exclusion. Finding that the exclusion was valid, the PA Superior Court affirmed. The court found the facts of the case and policy exclusion analogous to the case of Erie Ins. Exchange v. Mione, 289 A.3d 524 (Pa. 2023). In Mione, a motorcyclist was injured in an accident with another vehicle whose driver was both at fault and underinsured. The motorcyclist's insurance policy did not include UM/UIM coverage. However, the motorcyclist had two household policies covering other vehicles, including stacked UM/UIM coverage, as well a household vehicle exclusion. UM/UIM benefits were therefore denied, and the motorcyclist argued that the exclusion was invalid because it did not comport with the statutory waiver requirements of Section 1738. The PA Supreme Court rejected the argument, explaining that UM/UIM coverage could not be procured in the "first instance" under the motorcyclist's household policies as “[F]or a household vehicle exclusion to be acting as an impermissible de facto waiver of stacking, the insured must have received UM/UIM coverage under some other policy first, or else is not implicated at all.” The motorcyclist had not received any UM/UIM benefits under his own motorcycle policy, so there was nothing for the UM/UIM benefits of the household policies to "stack on" to, and as such, Section 1738 was not implicated. The court also distinguished the case from Gallagher v. Geico, 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2009), in which a motorcyclist was injured in an accident caused by another driver who was underinsured. The motorcyclist had purchased two policies, each of which provided stacked UM/UIM benefits. The first policy covered only the motorcycle; the second covered two automobiles, while also containing a "household exclusion," which precluded UM/UIM benefits. The PA Supreme Court held that the exclusion was invalid because the resulting waiver of UM/UIM coverage did not comport with the statutory requirements of Section 1738. The court distinguished the Kennedy’s case from Gallagher as the Kennedy’s were attempting to stack UM/UIM coverages from (a) the Progressive Motorcycle Policy under which Dennis Kennedy was the only insured, and (b) the Erie Policy under which Dennis Kennedy and Elissa J. Kennedy were the insureds. Crucially, the court found that the party from whom the right to stack UM/UIM benefits under the Erie policy was derived (Elissa J. Kennedy) was not an insured under the motorcycle policy. In other words, no one paid for Elissa J. Kennedy to receive UM/UIM benefits under the motorcycle policy, so that policy afforded her no contractual right to such coverage in the first instance. The court further reasoned that the "miscellaneous vehicle" exclusion in the Erie Policy was valid because the insured, Elissa J. Kennedy, had not first received UM/UIM coverage under Dennis Kennedy's Motorcycle Policy. In conclusion, the Court found Gallagher inapposite, and Mione compelled the affirmance of the trial court's ruling upholding Erie’s denial of coverage pursuant to the household vehicle exclusion. Christin is a Shareholder in our King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, office. She can be reached at 610-354-8279 or clkochel@mdwcg.com.