Orlando
Marshall Dennehey's Orlando office is situated in the heart of downtown, overlooking Lake Eola. The Orlando office is mere blocks from state and federal courthouses and ideally positioned to service clients throughout central and northeast Florida. Its reach includes Jacksonville, Ocala, Gainesville, Daytona, the Space Coast, I-4 corridor and all points between. The Orlando office provides experienced legal representation in venues including the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and the state Circuit Courts of Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Volusia, Flagler, St. Johns, Duval, Nassau, Clay, Putnam, Marion, Alachua, Lake, Polk, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach and Okeechobee Counties.
The Orlando office practices aggressive, well-prepared defense litigation by lawyers who are accessible and who practice and pride themselves on client relations. Its breadth of experience includes the successful defense of wrongful death, catastrophic injury, product liability, motor vehicle liability, alcohol liability, defamation and a wide range of premises liability cases. These include slip and fall, malicious prosecution, false arrest, negligent security, construction defect and elevator/escalator incidents. In addition, the office has distinguished itself in the defense of theme parks and issues relating to wild animals, amusement rides and crowd control.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Florida Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal with Prejudice of a Claim Against Lyft Based on Statutory Immunity
July 20, 2026
Plaintiff, Louise Haddad, sued Lyft for damages after allegedly being assaulted by her Lyft driver. The plaintiff asserted claims for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation against Lyft based on statements from its website which led her to believe the ride would be safe. Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of her claims with prejudice, finding that they were barred by the broad immunity conferred to Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) under § 631.918, Florida Statutes. To plead an exception to TNC immunity, the plaintiff would have to allege sufficient facts, such as a violation of antitrust laws, bad faith, malicious purpose, or wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property. Since the plaintiff failed to adequately plead an exception, the court found her claims were barred by Florida’s TNC immunity statute. This case highlights the importance of legislative immunity in defending rideshare cases even at the pleadings stage.
Case Law Alerts
Florida Appellate Court Reverses Summary Judgment, Holding Commercial Landlord Had a Duty to Investigate Roof Leak
July 20, 2026
The District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's entry of summary judgment, holding that the commercial landlord owed a duty of reasonable care to investigate a roof leak. Plaintiff, Scott Hale, managed a Domino's Pizza operating on premises leased from Sleiman Enterprises, Inc., slipped and fell on water that had leaked from the roof into the kitchen. Because the lease permitted only Sleiman to access the roof, Domino's could not investigate the source and instead reported the leak to Sleiman. The trial court granted summary judgment for Sleiman, reasoning that the lease required Domino's to maintain the allegedly defective hood vent and that Sleiman therefore owed no duty. The appellate court reversed, holding that Sleiman owed a duty of reasonable care because its exclusive control over roof access foreseeably created a zone of risk and prevented Domino's from discovering or repairing the source of the leak. The court held that the lease provision assigning hood vent maintenance to Domino's did not relieve Sleiman of that duty, and it rejected the argument that the danger was open and obvious, noting that an obvious danger discharges only the duty to warn, not the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. The ruling reinforces that a landlord's retained exclusive control over an area can support a duty notwithstanding a tenant's contractual maintenance obligations.
Results
Sex Trafficking and Abuse Claims Against Hotel Successfully Dismissed
We were successful in having all claims against our client’s hotel dismissed. This case involved deeply distressing allegations of sex trafficking and abuse by the plaintiff’s mother, occurring when the plaintiff was a minor. The claims against our client’s hotel were brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and Florida law. While the court was unequivocal in acknowledging the tragic and serious nature of the plaintiff’s allegations against her abusers, it ultimately found that the legal claims against our client were not supported by sufficient factual allegations to state a cause of action under either federal or state law. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint without prejudice. However, upon review of the amended complaint, the court agreed with our renewed motion to dismiss and concluded that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that our hotel knowingly participated in a trafficking venture or maintained a continuous business relationship with the traffickers. The amended complaint alleged only a single instance of trafficking at our client’s hotel and asserted that the conduct was so blatant that hotel staff should have recognized it. The court found this insufficient to support a claim under the TVPRA. Additionally, the court found that the allegations did not meet the high legal threshold required to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Florida law.
Summary Judgment Secured in a Slip-and-Fall Premises Liability Case
We were granted final summary judgment in a slip-and-fall premises liability case. The plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on an unidentified wet substance while waiting in line at the defendant’s convenience store. The plaintiff admitted she did not see the substance prior to her fall and did not know what it was, where it came from or how long it had been there. She testified that the wetness appeared to have been tracked in by other customers, noting their shoes were wet. We moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not meet her burden under § 768.0755, Fla. Stat., to prove that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged condition. Surveillance footage showed multiple customers walking through the area without issue, and no visible hazard appeared on video. The court agreed and granted final summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the case with prejudice.
