.

Matthew J. Wildner

Shareholder

MJWildner@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Matthew J. Wildner

Matthew is an attorney in the Professional Liability Department, where he represents businesses, directors and officers, design professionals, contractors and homeowners associations in commercial, professional liability, construct defect, architectural, engineering, and employment disputes. 

Litigating in both state and federal court, Matthew devotes a significant portion of his practice to defending design professionals and construction professionals, independently as well as through their insurance carriers, in complex construction defect suits involving a variety of claims, such as building and design-related deficiencies, code violations, negligence, breach of contract and fraud, as well as insurance coverage claims under GL policies. 

Additionally, Matthew represents employers in litigation and provides advice and counsel concerning a variety of employment-related matters, including claims alleging discrimination, wrongful discharge, breach of contract and related tort claims.

Matthew graduated from the University of Florida in 2006, where he received his B.A.  He obtained his juris doctor in 2010 from Stetson University College of Law. Matthew is admitted to the Bar of the state of Florida. He is admitted to practice before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Court for the Southern, Middle and Northern Districts of Florida. Before moving into private practice, Matthew began his career at the Palm Beach County State Attorney's office, where he tried over 70 cases to verdict. Matthew also serves as an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve in the Judge Advocate General's Corps. He is a veteran of Operation Resolute Support, deploying to Afghanistan in 2016.

    • Stetson University College of Law (J.D., 2010)
    • University of Florida (B.A., 2006)
    • Florida, 2010
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit
    • Florida Bar Association
    • Represented General Contractor facing class-action lawsuit with damages claimed to exceed $1 billion. Consulted and managed multiple expert teams to defend against allegations that construction vibrations caused by the client and its subcontractors contributed to the collapse of an adjacent condominium. Representation contributed to amicable early settlement that allowed the insurer to quickly move and spared the client ongoing reputational damage.
    • Represented General Contractor of high-rise condominium complex against the owner/developer who alleged a multitude of construction defects. Drafted a MSJ that reduced scope of claim by close to $1 million and contributed to successful counterclaim. 
    • Represented subcontractor sued by Condominium HOA and General Contractor for subcontractor’s limited scope of work in case containing over 20 parties. Negotiated quick and minor payouts as to all claims which resulted in carrier saving close to $100k in attorney’s fees as opposed to protracted and costly litigation. 
    • Obtained summary judgment in favor of a south Florida municipality. The lawsuit was filed against the municipality by a member of the police department, who alleged unlawful termination due to his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis. The suit alleged a breach contract and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Family Medical Leave Act. The defense argued that the Plaintiff was not a qualified individual for the position of police officer because he could not perform the essential functions of his job with or without a reasonable accommodation, and that Plaintiff failed to state a claim on the Breach of Contract and title VII claims. The court agreed with the defense on both points and summary judgment was granted. This was a substantial victory for the municipality, the court ruling not only upheld the termination of an unqualified employee but also avoided a potential costly judgment against the Defendant. 

Thought Leadership

View all

Legal Updates for Real Estate E&O Liability

What To Expect for Real Estate E&O In The Florida 2026 Legislative Session

February 5, 2026

Florida’s 2026 legislative session opens with an unusually heavy real estate agenda. If enacted, proposed measures could reshape transactional practices and expand compliance-driven errors-and-omissions exposure. More than 100 pre-filed bills address real property issues, with a primary focus on ad valorem tax reform, expanded disclosure and inspection regulation, and land-use and association governance changes. While full elimination of property taxes is unlikely, multiple proposals contemplate exemptions or phase-outs for homesteaded properties, seniors, disabled veterans, and first-time homebuyers. These changes directly affect property valuation, affordability analyses, and buyer-facing representations, which are all common sources of E&O claims when tax assumptions or investment projections later prove inaccurate. Several proposed bills also carry direct operational and insurance implications for real estate professionals: Transaction and Inspection Regulation: HB 65 – Requires home inspectors to meet DBPR standards and carry E&O insurance SB 832 / HB 767 – Increased transparency in residential property insurance rate disclosures Zoning and Development: SB 48 / HB 313 – Mandatory local approval of accessory dwelling units SB 208 / HB 399 – Removal of zoning barriers to promote infill development HB 837 / SB 962 – Revised land-use definitions excluding farmland Association and Property Governance: HB 465 / SB 822 – Licensing and contract requirements for community association management firms SB 750 / HB 803 – Limits on municipal administrative fees for private inspections and plan reviews SB 606 / SB 608 / SB 610 – Expanded residential pool-safety requirements E&O Takeaway: The proposed 2026 legislation reflects a shift toward greater statutory regulation of real estate transactions, inspections, disclosures, and property governance. As regulatory requirements expand, liability risk increasingly arises from failure to recognize and implement new compliance obligations, miscommunication of zoning or tax impacts, and reliance on newly regulated third-party inspection services. Brokers, managers, and their E&O carriers should closely monitor enacted provisions and update transaction checklists, disclosure protocols, and client advisory practices accordingly. Legal Update for Real Estate E&O – February 2026, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2026 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact MEDeSatnick@mdwcg.com.

Case Law Alerts

Florida increases minimum wage.

April 1, 2022

On September 30, 2022, the minimum wage will increase to $11.00 per hour. This comes after Florida’s minimum wage increased to $10.00 per hour on September 30, 2021 ($6.98 for tipped employees). The state minimum wage will continue to increase $1 per year thereafter until it reaches $15.00 per hour ($11.98 for tipped employees). After which, it will be adjusted annually based on inflation. Section 448.109, Florida Statutes, requires employers who pay their employees the Florida minimum wage to post a minimum wage notice in a visible and accessible place in each establishment where these employees work. In addition to the Florida minimum wage notice, federal law requires employers to post a notice of the federal minimum wage. Florida’s minimum wage notice is available for downloading in English, Spanish, and Creole from the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity’s website at: http://www.floridajobs.org.   Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, April 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Recreational Immunity for County Under Landowners' Liability Act

In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc. v. Middlesex County Parks Department, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of Middlesex County Parks Department, holding that the county was immune from liability under New Jersey's Landowners' Liability Act (LLA), notwithstanding its failure to plead the immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Complaint. The case arose from injuries sustained by fourteen-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Kuzma, while playing basketball at Spring Lake Park in South Plainfield on August 23, 2019. The plaintiff observed a crack in the basketball court before beginning to play but did not consider it dangerous. During the game, his foot became caught in the crack, causing him to fall and suffer a significant ankle injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted in ongoing physical limitations and deprived him of the opportunity to play collegiate basketball. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendants negligently maintained the basketball court. Although the county did not assert LLA immunity as an affirmative defense in its answers, it later moved for summary judgment on that basis. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the county had waived the defense by failing to plead it. The county maintained that the plaintiff had received sufficient notice of its intent to rely on the LLA through discovery and therefore suffered no unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, concluding that the county should be permitted to invoke statutory immunity notwithstanding its failure to formally plead the defense. Relying heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court's guidance in Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen, holding a county park was subject to the immunity of the LLA, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the county's failure to plead LLA immunity did not preclude reliance on the defense under the circumstances presented. The court determined that the plaintiff had received adequate notice of the immunity claim through discovery and that permitting the defense furthered the public-policy objectives embodied in the LLA. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's injury and the general societal interest in maintaining parks and recreational facilities in a safe condition. However, the court emphasized that both the legislature and the New Jersey Supreme Court have expressed a clear policy choice to limit liability for public and private landowners who make recreational property available for public use. The decision reinforces the courts' continuing adherence to the Landowners' Liability Act and the principle that recreational lands and facilities should be broadly protected from liability exposure, even in cases involving significant personal injuries.

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case