Fort Lauderdale
The Fort Lauderdale office of Marshall Dennehey is conveniently located near our South Florida and statewide clients, while remaining centrally located to the courts and main transportation arteries. As a regional office of Marshall Dennehey, the Fort Lauderdale office is backed by the resources of a firm with 500 lawyers. It stands ready to assist every client -- be they individuals, small businesses, large corporations or insurance carriers -- by providing high-quality, results-oriented legal representation that is both innovative and cost-effective.
Thought Leadership
Daily Business Review
A Unified, Single Claim for Damages Requires Apportionment in a Joint Proposal: What the Decision in 'Trace Elements' Means for Property Insurance Claims
August 6, 2026
Kimberly and Seth, shareholders in the Insurance Services Practice in our Fort Lauderdale office, break down the Florida Supreme Court's decision in 'Trace Elements v. MacKensen' and what it means for property insurance claims in the state. Read the article here.
Case Law Alerts
Florida Appellate Court Clarifies the Limits of Condominium Director Immunity
July 21, 2026
A Florida appellate court ruled that a trial court erred in its decision to dismiss a condominium association's lawsuit with prejudice. The King David of Sunny Isles Condominium Association brought a lawsuit against two former board directors. The association alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties, violated the condominium's governing documents and the Florida Condominium Act, and engaged in improper financial and governance practices, including failing to maintain financial records, improperly suspending a unit owner's voting rights, and allowing the use of an association-issued debit card. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that the association failed to allege compliance with a bylaw requiring approval from 75% of the membership before filing suit and concluding that any amendment would be futile. Under Florida law, directors and officers of non-profit organizations are generally protected from personal liability for monetary damages regarding organizational management, policy, decisions, or omissions. However, this immunity is not absolute. On appeal, the court held that dismissal with prejudice was improper because defects related to pleading a condition precedent are generally curable through amendment. More significantly, the court emphasized that while condominium directors are typically protected from personal liability, allegations involving the improper use of an association-issued debit card could fall within statutory exceptions to that immunity if properly pleaded. Florida courts generally allow plaintiffs an opportunity to amend defective complaints unless it is clear that no amendment could state a valid cause of action and this decision serves as a reminder of that. The case was ultimately remanded to allow the association to amend its complaint and proceed with the litigation.
Results
Summary Judgment Secured in a Foodborne Illness Wrongful Death Matter
We won summary judgment in a foodborne illness wrongful death case. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against multiple parties, including the seafood supplier, distributors, transporters and the restaurant that served the decedent. The plaintiff alleged the decedent died as a result of eating raw oysters that contained vibrio vulnificus. We represented the supplier and argued there was no evidence the oysters were defective when they left the supplier’s hands. An expert was retained to support our motion for summary judgment. The expert prepared an affidavit citing the applicable duties pertaining to the harvesting, processing, and transportation of the oysters and stated the supplier did not breach any of the applicable duties. Utilizing calculated pressure tactics in a long-term strategy execution, plaintiff’s counsel eventually conceded that the record evidence did not support a finding that the supplier breached its duties, resulting in the court granting summary judgment. The case remains ongoing with multimillion dollar demands against the remaining defendants.
Summary Judgment Secured in a Contentious Coverage Matter
We were granted summary judgment in a coverage matter. The plaintiff was seeking UM benefits for a policy he had on a car he owned for an accident that occurred when he was operating a motorcycle he owned, but did not insure. The court confirmed that the policy excluded underinsured motorist coverage for the plaintiff’s motorcycle. The issue was that the definition of “motor vehicle” for the other owned motor vehicle exclusion was not specifically provided in the policy. In the PIP coverage, the policy contained an exclusion for motorcycles because the definition said motor vehicles must have four wheels. The plaintiff argued that the same policy said a motorcycle was not a motor vehicle for PIP coverage, but was a motor vehicle for the other owned vehicle exclusion. This was an ambiguity in the policy that should be interpreted against the carrier. The plaintiff had significant injuries that far exceeded the value of the policy. The court upheld both exclusions and followed our argument that the PIP and UM portions of the policy are separate and distinct and that any definition in the PIP coverage did not necessarily apply to the UM coverage.
News
106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America
August 20, 2026
Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars
June 26, 2026
Marshall Dennehey Again Earns Recognition in Distinguished Chambers USA
June 4, 2026
