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.
Results
Thought Leadership
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.
