Michael is the firm's supervising attorney for the Insurance Services Practice Group in the state of Florida and a member of the firm's Board of Directors. The group assists insurers in all aspects of a coverage dispute, including responses to civil remedy notices of insurer violations, pre-suit investigations and coverage evaluations, declaratory judgment and bad faith litigation. In particular, Michael defends property insurers throughout Florida in first party coverage matters, where he responds to claims for sinkhole, windstorm, fire, mold, theft, and water losses. Michael's group also conducts examinations under oath and SIU investigations.
In both the state and federal courts, Michael has participated in a number of bench and jury trials through verdict, all of which resulted in either a defense verdict or a verdict which was less than the amount demanded.
In addition, Michael is often asked to serve as coverage and bad faith counsel in third party actions, including monitoring the defense of litigation, as well as trial. As part of this role, Michael is often asked to draft reservation of rights, declinations and prosecute declaratory relief actions.
Michael has substantial experience in alternative dispute resolution, having represented clients in thousands of mediations, neutral evaluations and arbitration proceedings. Michael routinely advises clients on the evaluation and resolution of multi-claimant matters, often times where the injuries and damages exceed the available policy limits.
Over the past ten years, Michael and his group have defended in excess of three hundred sinkhole lawsuits, as well as hundreds of other first party lawsuits. The group has defended a number of cases through trial and appeal, including four sinkhole trials during recent years. In addition, the group represents more than ten statewide insurance carriers in first party property damage lawsuits, including many of the largest insurance carriers in Florida.
Michael routinely speaks at regional and nationwide industry conferences, specifically addressing coverage issues under first party property and third party liability policies. He has also presented a number of seminars on auto negligence, uninsured motorist and bad faith claims. Michael frequently travels around the country to provide in-house claims seminars with claims professionals. In addition, he has lectured on defending first party property damage claims including sinkhole and mold claims, which included review and analysis of claims handling procedures, as well as recommendations for the same. Michael has also written numerous articles for industry publications addressing Florida-specific claim handling issues and insurance companies’ rights and obligations in defending first and third party coverage actions.
In 1994 Michael earned his Bachelor of Arts from the State University of New York at Albany. Subsequently, Michael obtained his juris doctor in 1997 from the University of Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, Florida, where he graduated cum laude.
Michael is married to Nicole Packer and they live with their three children in Weston, Florida.
Results
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation
Fourth DCA Rules a Notice of Intent to Litigate is “Suit-Specific” and a Notice must be Filed Prior to All Lawsuits Filed on a Single Claim
June 11, 2026
Moreno v. People’s Trust Insurance Company, (May 13, 2026) This case involved a property damage claim in which the homeowner argued she was not fully indemnified. She provided the insurer with a notice of intent to litigate prior to filing suit. The lawsuit was filed, but later voluntarily dismissed. The homeowner then filed an identical lawsuit, but did not provide a second pre-suit notice before doing so. The insurer moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing it was entitled to a second pre-suit notice of intent to litigate, because notice is “suit-specific,” not “claim-specific.” The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice. On appeal, the homeowner argued the statute’s reference to “a notice” for a “suit” is “claim-specific” not “suit-specific.” The Fourth DCA found that the requirement for pre-suit notice was in fact “suit-specific” and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case. The Fourth DCA reasoned that §627.70152(3) requires a pre-suit settlement demand that itemizes damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, not a simple notice of a claim. The Fourth DCA further reasoned that the settlement demand provided before the second suit would also include damages incurred after the first lawsuit was filed. Thus, the court reasoned, adopting the homeowner’s “claim-specific” argument would frustrate the core purpose of the statute, which is to allow the insurer to evaluate an updated settlement demand.
Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation
Mere Speculation is not Enough to Demonstrate Prejudice After Late Notice
March 1, 2026
Bryan-Wilson, etc. v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 4D2024-1547 The Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict in favor of Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company after it found Universal did not meet its burden to demonstrate it was prejudiced by the late notice of a plumbing loss. The subject claim was reported fifty-eight days after the alleged loss. Following the field adjuster’s inspection, coverage was afforded for the loss, and payment was issued. Suit was filed on behalf of the insureds for damages they claimed the insurer failed to pay. In response to the complaint, Universal raised (amongst others) failure to provide prompt notice of the loss as an affirmative defense and stated the failure prejudiced its investigation of the claim. At trial, when questioned as to how Universal was prejudiced, the corporate representative testified: Because during those 58 days that we weren't told of the loss, [the homeowner wife] had someone out there at the property, taking photos of the property as of October 14, 2019, and we have no idea . . . what else happened within that time span of those 58 days, which prejudiced our investigation because we're not aware if the damages we're seeing at the time that we're out there are actually in fact from what she's saying happened on September 1st. Following the close of evidence, both parties moved for directed verdict on the late notice issue. The court denied both motions and the jury found in favor of Universal. However, the appellate court found the factual basis for the claim of prejudice to be based on speculation. As the appellate court explained, the insurer had no evidence that the condition of the property had changed during the time period between the date of loss and the date the claim was reported. Rather, the claim of prejudice was due to the fact that the insurer did not know what happened to the property during the fifty-eight days and, therefore, it could have changed between the date of loss and when it was reported. Insomuch as the policy language required the failure to provide prompt notice of the loss to be prejudicial to the insurer, Florida law places the burden on the insurer to prove it has been prejudiced. In reversing the jury’s verdict, the appellate court found the insurer did not meet its burden by merely stating it could not determine what happened, if anything, to the property during the relevant time period.
