.

Jacksonville

Our Jacksonville, Florida, office delivers strategic, well-prepared defense litigation through attorneys who are experienced, practical, and readily accessible. Serving clients throughout northern Florida, our attorneys defend clients in casualty, professional liability, health care and workers' compensation matters.

As a regional office of Marshall Dennehey, the Jacksonville office is backed by the resources of a 500-lawyer firm. It stands ready to assist every client—be they individuals, small businesses, large corporations or insurance carriers—by providing high-quality, result-oriented legal representation that is both innovative and cost-effective.

Thought Leadership

View all

Case Law Alerts

3rd District Analyzes Liquidated Damages Provision, Contingency Risk Multiplier in Context of Construction Contract

July 21, 2026

Alan Little and Bath & Kitchen Boutique, LLC (BKB) entered into an agreement wherein BKB would design and renovate Little’s master bathroom. A portion of BKB’s work failed to pass city inspections, after which the parties executed a contract amendment giving BKB additional time to pass final inspection and establishing that BKB would owe Little $1,000 per day for each day it went beyond this additional time. The amendment also contained a provision requiring BKB to pay 100% of Little’s legal fees for preparing the amendment and enforcing it. BKB’s work ultimately passed final inspection 67 days beyond the amendment’s completion date. Little then filed suit against BKB alleging breach of contract and seeking $67,000 in liquidated damages. BKB filed countersuit alleging it was entitled to a judgment declaring the $1,000 per day fine to be an unenforceable penalty, and that Little had breached the agreement by failing to pay BKB for its work. Both parties alleged entitlement to attorneys’ fees based on the fee provision in the amendment, with BKB alleging the provision was reciprocal pursuant to Fla. Stat. 57.105(7). Little obtained the issuance of a $35,000 prejudgment writ of garnishment. BKB moved to dissolve the writ. Two hearings were held on BKB’s motion, but the court never issued final adjudication. Little then filed a notice extending the writ for an additional six months. BKB filed a petition for writ of certiorari challenging the lower court’s discovery order, which was granted. Both parties filed motions for appellate level fees based on the fee provision, and the appeals court then denied Little’s appellate fees motion and conditionally granted BKB’s, provided BKB prevailed in the trial court action and the trial court found the fee provision valid. Both parties then filed competing summary judgment motions in the lower court, which entered partial summary judgment in BKB’s favor, concluding the daily fine was unenforceable. The parties entered a settlement agreement as to BKB’s remaining counterclaim seeking payment for its work, with Little stipulating to BKB’s entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs and requesting an evidentiary hearing to set the amount of fees and costs. A two-day evidentiary hearing was held with the court considering live testimony from BKB’s owner, trial attorney, and fees expert. The court then awarded BKB attorney’s fees for the time spent litigating issues relating to the prejudgment writ of garnishment, at both trial and appellate levels, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 77.032(3) and 57.105(7). It applied a 1.5 contingency risk multiplier. Little then appealed. On appeal, the court analyzed Fla. Stat. 57.105(7), and specifically its use of the language “with respect to the contract,” through the lens of the FL Supreme Court’s opinion in Ham v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The Ham court found that even actions that are not “based on” or “pursuant to” the underlying contract may still have a clear and direct relationship so as to fit the statute’s language. Here, the court similarly found there was a clear and direct relationship between the proceedings on Little’s writ and the parties’ contract litigation. However, as to the contingency risk multiplier, the court found that BKB did not offer any direct evidence that, absent availability of a contingency risk multiplier, BKB would have faced substantial difficulty finding an attorney to represent it. BKB merely argued that construction attorneys in the relevant market rarely took on breach of contract actions under a contingency fee. As such, the contingency fee instituted by the trial court was not supported by the requisite evidence and thus improper. The court therefore affirmed the award of costs and fees to BKB, but reversed the application of the contingency risk multiplier to the fees award and remanded for amended judgment consistent with this opinion.

Case Law Alerts

Contractor Prevails on Contractual Risk of Loss Provision

July 21, 2026

Carnaval Home hired Berman Construction to renovate an existing home owned by Carnaval. Their contract set the date of substantial completion at September 4, 2019, and included a risk of loss provision placing risk predominantly on Carnaval. Berman hired subcontractors, including an electrician and project supervisor, to carry out the renovations. On July 29, 2019, with renovation 90% complete, a fire destroyed the home. Carnaval then sued Berman for breach of contract, negligence, and violation of Florida building code. Carnaval based its breach of contract theory primarily on Berman failing to deliver the renovated property by substantial completion. At trial, Carnaval presented evidence that faulty attic wiring caused the fire, while Berman claimed it was caused by arson or another cause beyond its control. During the charge conference, Berman requested a question on the verdict form regarding the risk of loss provision and its other defenses of impossibility of performance and frustration of purpose. The trial court granted a directed verdict on impossibility of performance and frustration of purpose, holding the risk of loss provision eliminated those defenses, and also denied Berman’s request for the risk of loss question on the verdict form. The verdict form ultimately included questions regarding the breach, negligence, and code violation claims. Its questions regarding the breach claim included the following: whether Carnaval did what was required by contract; whether Carnaval was excused from doing what was required by contract; whether Berman failed to do what was required by contract; and whether Carnaval was damaged by Berman’s failure to perform. The jury found Berman was not negligent but did violate the building code and breach its contract, though the code violation did not cause Carnaval’s damages. Carnaval was awarded $928,850 pursuant to the breach claim. The trial court denied Berman’s post-trial motions and granted Carnaval’s motion for attorneys fees. On appeal, the 4th DCA noted that Carnaval presented evidence that the fire occurred the day electrical work was completed and power was restored to the house for the first time since construction began, when the home was under the exclusive control of Berman and its subcontractors. It presented testimony from the carpenter that the kitchen and family room lights went out while he was at the property that evening, which was also corroborated by Carnaval principal Luis Ormo. It presented expert testimony that the fire likely started in the attic and was not a result of arson. Berman offered testimony that traces of gas were detected along with unusual burn patterns and heat deformation at the bottom of door frames. Its expert testified that the fire had multiple points of origin. Berman established the home was engulfed in flames emanating from the roof within twenty minutes of Carnaval leaving the property and argued the fire could not have moved so fast absent arson. It further suggested the electrician and Ormo had separate dealings in violation of their subcontract, thus some of the electrician’s conduct was beyond Berman’s control. The 4th DCA held Berman’s claim of inconsistency between the negligence, building code violation, and breach jury verdicts was to be remedied by a new trial, not directed verdict, and further held that it did not have to decide whether the verdict was truly inconsistent as Berman did not raise this issue before the jury was discharged and did not seek the appropriate remedy of a new trial. As such, it held the trial court was correct in denying Berman’s motion for directed verdict. However, the court held that the trial court erred in denying Berman’s special interrogatory request as to the risk of loss provision. It explained that, where interrogatory verdict forms are used, it should include questions on both the plaintiff’s claims and any affirmative defenses. Without allowing a question regarding whether the risk of loss provision excused Berman from performance, the trial court did not resolve “the major question in the case.” The jury, having found Berman not negligent, made Berman’s defense, and the verdict form question, particularly significant. The court rejected Carnaval’s argument that Berman had waived its demand for arson-specific instructions and that Berman bore the risk of loss from non-arson-induced fires. It also held that Carnaval incorrectly applied the negative-implication canon, wherein the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another, stating not every positive statement of rights or obligations carries a negative implication. Further, the risk of loss provision’s clause including “perils beyond contractor’s reasonable control” amounted to a catch-all, to which the negative-implication canon cannot be applied. When read in totality, the provision clearly places risk of loss on Carnaval for perils such as arson. Berman was therefore entitled to have the jury decide whether the loss was caused by arson or another peril beyond its control. Final judgment in favor of Carnaval was reversed, as was the trial court’s order denying Berman’s motion for attorneys fees, and the matter was remanded for a new trial.

Results

View all

Summary Judgment Obtained in a Vehicular Accident Case Involving Disputed Liability

We received summary judgment in a vehicular accident case involving disputed liability. Mr. Thurman was the third vehicle in a three-car collision in which the first vehicle admitted fault and was ticketed. Following the accident, the plaintiffs claimed they were in a fourth vehicle and alleged that Mr. Thurman caused the crash. When the claim was denied—and on the eve of the implementation of tort reform—the plaintiffs filed individual lawsuits against Mr. Thurman alone. We subpoenaed the repair shop that serviced Mr. Thurman’s vehicle and obtained records confirming that there was no front-end damage. When the plaintiffs failed to respond to discovery, we prepared motions for summary judgment in both cases. In response, only one plaintiff submitted an affidavit, while Mr. Thurman provided his own affidavit denying the allegations. We argued the motions, demonstrating that the evidence showed the plaintiffs were not involved in the collision and that Mr. Thurman bore no fault. The court ruled in our favor in both cases. Before the orders could be entered, however, the plaintiffs filed notices of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Before moving for summary judgment, we had served Proposals for Settlement on the plaintiffs and their counsel. After the dismissals, we filed a motion establishing entitlement to attorney’s fees, and the parties ultimately reached an agreement resolving all fees and costs in both cases.

Exceptional Advocacy Leads to Indemnification Win

We were successful in having a motion for indemnification granted. Our client’s subcontractor did not secure workers’ compensation coverage as required by the statute. Therefore, our client—the contractor—became the statutory employer and accepted the claim as compensable, providing medical and indemnity benefits and reaching a settlement compromise with the injured worker. We filed a motion for indemnification, requesting that the subcontractor be ordered to reimburse our client for all monies paid on the claim. After an evidentiary hearing was held, where we presented evidence and called the vice president of claims to testify, the judge of compensation claims granted our motion.

News

View all

Events

View all

Speaking Engagement

29th Annual FDLA Florida Liability Claims Conference

June 10-12, 2026

Disney’s Yacht and Beach Club Conference Center, Lake Buena Vista, FL

James P. Hanratty and Erica R. Cagan

Firm Highlights

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

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

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Takes Up the Gist of the Action Doctrine

The gist of the action doctrine has been a hot topic in legal malpractice cases in Pennsylvania over the last several years.  Beginning in 2014, the Pennsylvania courts applied the gist of the action doctrine to professional liability actions, following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion in Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., 106 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014).  In Bruno, the court applied the gist of the action doctrine to a professional negligence claim, and found that a negligence claim was not barred simply because the parties were in a contractual relationship where the gist of the claim sounded in negligence. Thereafter, courts in Pennsylvania applied the gist of the action doctrine to breach of contract claims as well, finding that where the allegations sounded in negligence, a plaintiff could not recast a negligence claim as one for breach of contract. This was important because of the distinction between statutes of limitations: negligence claims must be brought within two (2) years, while breach of contract claims can be brought within four (4) years.  Then, last year, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the gist of the action doctrine does not apply to breach of contract claims as seen through two opinions. These opinions were Swatt v. Nottingham Village, 342 A.3d 23 (Pa. Super. 2025) and Poteat v. Asteak, et al., 350 A.3d 198 (Pa. Super. 2025). That is, the gist of the action doctrine can bar a negligence claim but it cannot bar a breach of contract claim.  This month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the petition for allowance of appeal in Poteat.  The Supreme Court phrased the issue for consideration as follows: Whether the Superior Court majority’s holding conflicts with this Court’s holding in Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co., 160 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014), as well as Superior Court opinions that applied Bruno, and departs from almost 200 years of controlling precedent that distinguishes between causes of action in contract and tort based upon the nature of the duty that was allegedly breached? Attorneys on both sides of legal malpractice matters no doubt look forward to clarification on these issues from our Supreme Court.

Thought Leadership

Delaware Superior Court Clarifies Pleading Standard for Legal Malpractice Claims

In the matter of Edelstein v. Kirschner, No. N25C-09-018 FJJ, 2026 Del. Super. LEXIS 45, at *1 (Super. Ct. Jan. 29, 2026), the plaintiff law firm sued its former client for unpaid legal fees in the amount of $4,399.35. The former client asserted a counterclaim alleging legal malpractice. More, specifically, the former client claimed that his lawyer committed malpractice be recommending that he settle an underlying lawsuit by entering into a stipulated judgment for an excessive amount with interest that was accruing at “an outlandish” interest rate. The law firm moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the basis that its former client had not alleged facts reflecting that he could prove the case within the case. That is, facts reflecting that his attorneys caused him to lose the underlying case. The Superior Court held that while a legal malpractice plaintiff in cases arising from underlying litigation must prove the case within the case to survive a summary judgment motion, he does not need to plead facts reflecting as much in order to survive a motion to dismiss. While this case addresses the pleading requirements of a legal malpractice case in Delaware, it also serves as reminder that chasing unpaid legal fees from a former client can often give rise to a legal malpractice counterclaim. Attorneys seeking to collect unpaid legal fees should ensure that the fees they seek are for a significant amount, which would be recoverable if a judgment is obtained. Otherwise, the effort could backfire.

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

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.