Marshall Dennehey's Professional Liability Department delivers powerful, results‑driven defense representation for clients spanning all areas of professional liability representation. Supported by a robust team of seasoned litigators across 19 strategically located offices, we offer the scale, experience, and agility to take on cases of any size or complexity. Clients trust us for our responsiveness, our exceptional insight, and our unwavering commitment to protecting their interests before and if necessary, at every stage of litigation.
Our Professional Liability Department consists of over 20 distinct areas of law, showcasing the strength and sophistication of our capabilities. We represent the full range of non‑medical professionals, including lawyers, accountants, architects, engineers, licensed agents, broker‑dealers and any miscellaneous profession typically covered by a professional liability policy. In addition to our traditional practice defending errors and omissions claims against licensed professionals, Marshall Dennehey’s Professional Liability Department includes practice groups, dedicated to Employment/ Management Liability, Public Entity/ Civil Rights, School Leaders/ Educational Institutions, Cyber/Data-Security/Incidence Response, Appellate Advocacy and all aspects of Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Litigation.
Our attorneys are known for their skill in navigating politically sensitive, high‑stakes, and technically demanding cases. Clients benefit not only from our trial‑tested defense capabilities but also from our years of specific subject matter expertise that allow us to efficiently render sound prelitigation advice and consultation services in order to mitigate risk and avoid litigation.
Together, these integrated capabilities allow us to deliver comprehensive, forward‑thinking representation that protects our clients’ interests and positions them for long‑term success.
Professional Liability Practices
Accountants’ Professional Liability
Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice
Architectural, Engineering & Construction Defect Litigation
Cannabis Law
Class Action Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Consumer Financial Services Litigation
Disciplinary Board Representation
Employment Law
First-Party Property
Insurance Agents & Brokers Liability
Insurance Services – Coverage & Bad Faith Litigation
Intellectual Property, Technology & Media Litigation
Lawyers' Professional Liability
Miscellaneous Professional Liability
Non-Profit D&O
Privacy & Data Security
Public Entity & Civil Rights Litigation
Real Estate E&O Liability
School Leaders' Liability
Securities & Investments Professional Liability
White-Collar Crime
Results
Secured judgment on the pleadings and final judgment for an insurance carrier in a complex first-party property damage claim involving residential roof and interior damage.
We secured an order granting motion for judgment on the pleadings and final judgment in favor of an insurance carrier in a complex first-party property loss case involving a residential roof and interior damage claim. The carrier initially provided coverage for damage to the insured’s metal porch roof caused by a fallen tree branch. Several months later, however, the plaintiff reported additional damage to the home’s shingle roof and interior, which the carrier denied. In response to the lawsuit, we asserted several affirmative defenses, including that the carrier had properly paid the covered portion of the loss, that the delayed reporting of the additional damage prejudiced the carrier’s ability to investigate the claim, and that policy exclusions applied to the shingle roof and interior damage. The plaintiff failed to file a reply addressing those affirmative defenses. The defense moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiff had therefore failed to challenge or otherwise avoid the new matters raised by the carrier. The court agreed, granted the motion and entered final judgment in favor of our client.
Dismissal Obtained in New Jersey Realtor Liability Case
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation
Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees Due to Lack of Evidence to Support Fee Awarded
October 5, 2026
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding appellate fees to People’s Trust Insurance Company based upon a lack of evidence to support the attorney’s fee award in RM & Assocs. Consulting, Inc. v. People's Trust Ins. Co., 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 4654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). People’s Trust was the insurer of a residential property that had sustained water damage. RM & Associates Consulting was hired by the homeowner to perform mitigation services at the property. The homeowner assigned post-loss benefits to RM and RM subsequently filed suit against People’s Trust alleging that it had not been paid the money it was owed for the mitigation services. People’s Trust defended the lawsuit on the ground that the policy required the insured to notify the insurer before authorizing repairs so People's Trust could elect to use its preferred contractor. Because the owner did not comply with that provision, People's Trust asserted its liability was limited to the amount that its preferred contractor would have charged for the work, which People's Trust contended was $2,000. People's Trust paid that amount to RM before RM filed suit. People’s Trust filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. RM appealed the summary judgment ruling and the ruling was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate court also granted People’s Trust’s entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, subject to the trial court’s determination of the amount of fees, based upon an offer of judgment made by People's Trust. On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees People’s Trust was entitled to. At the hearing, People’s Trust presented testimony from it’s fee expert, supervising trial counsel and appellate counsel. People’s Trust sought recovery of $24,866.17 for work performed by appellate counsel. The request primarily consisted of work performed in preparation of the answer brief. The fee expert testified that more than ninety hours spent preparing the answer brief was reasonable given the complexity and significance of the underlying issue. The appellate court found that the fee expert’s testimony fell short of meeting the necessary standard of demonstrating that the hours expended were necessary. The appellate court found that the billing records did not serve to cure the deficient testimony, as the billing records did not contain adequate details regarding the specific tasks performed. Rather the records contained entries such as “answer brief” which the appellate court found to be insufficient. The appellate court noted that neither the fee expert or counsel addressed how the prior research and briefing in the parallel litigation informed the work in the instant matter. The appellate court noted this was significant in that a court's attorney's fees award must exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, citing Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based upon the record failing to support the finding of the trial court, the 4th DCA remanded the case to the trial court for a reconsideration and redetermination of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees supported by competent substantial evidence. The 4th DCA reiterated that the fee expert’s focus on the quality of the work and the importance of the work to People’s Trust did not make up for the perceived deficiencies in the position that spending over ninety hours on a single answer brief was reasonable. Whether moving for attorney’s fees or challenging the amount of fees being sought by an opposing party, practitioners should be mindful of the evidence being used to support the claims being made. Parties should pay close attention to whether the hours being sought may be impacted by prior litigation either party may have engaged in. A party must be prepared to address how prior litigation efforts did or did not impact the amount of hours being claimed in current litigation. Lastly, billing records must be sufficiently detailed so as to support any potential future fee claim.
Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation
First DCA Reverses Excessive Jury Award Unsupported by the Evidence
October 5, 2026
In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a claim with Universal for damages caused by a water and sewage back up through the plumbing system and existing through multiple fixtures including the washing machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub and toilet. Universal investigated the claim, issued payment for resulting water damage totaling $7,000.00 in actual cash value ($12,000.00 in replacement cost value). The plaintiffs sought additional benefits for work needed to access the below-slab cast iron plumbing system due to the failure of the system from rust, deterioration, corrosion and breaks in the line. Universal denied any additional benefits for access. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed suit. During litigation, Universal sent a plumber to inspect the home and the plumber concluded the pipes were clogged but could be cleaned. The plaintiffs’ plumber testified that the plumbing system needed to be replaced due to holes and openings in the pipes. The plaintiffs introduced two estimates prepared by Triad Restoration services totaling $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value and an executed contract with another company for repairs with the amounts of repair redacted. Since the insurance policy did not provide coverage for repair or replacement of the plumbing system, the jury only had to decide whether the plumbing system needed to be replaced, and if it did, Universal would owe for the access costs; the jury verdict form required the jury to determine both the replacement cost value and actual cash value amounts. The jury asked if it had to rely on the Triad estimates for their amounts. The trial court advised the amount awarded had to be based on the evidence presented at trial and the law given by the trial court. The jury awarded $335,000.00 in replacement cost value or $305,000.00 in actual cash value. Universal motioned for a new trial arguing the amount awarded was unsupported by the evidence and then moved for remittitur. The trial court denied both motions and this appeal followed. The court found that while a jury’s verdict should only be disturbed with caution and discretion, the trial court must give the properly challenged award close scrutiny and determine whether it bears a reasonable relation to the damaged provided, is supported by the evidence, and could have been reached in a logical manner by reasonable means §768.74(3), (5)(d)-(e), Fla. Stat. The court found the trial court did consider the statutory requirements at the hearing on Universal’s remittitur motion and was concerned about a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and injury suffered and whether the award was supported by the evidence, but ultimately denied the motion, reasoning that the jury had been properly instructed to fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs. The court noted the only evidence providing the basis for the jury verdict was Triad’s estimates and those valued the plaintiffs' claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value; no valuation evidence reasonably supported the jury verdict. The plaintiffs argued that the jury was entitled to consider more than the estimates, but the court conveyed the evidence provided did not give the jury a way to reach the amounts they awarded. The court was also not swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument regarding inflation and later price increases, but the court noted that no evidence via the contract, nor testimony regarding increase in labor, material, fuel or construction costs were entered into the record. The court concluded the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but it may not supply a damages number by speculation. The court did not find any of the plaintiffs’ remaining argument persuasive either. The court reversed the denial of Universal’s remittitur motion and motion for new trial as to damaged and remanded the case. The court ended its opinion with advising the trial court must determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the property measure of damages under the policy and order remittitur in an amount consistent with that determination and the evidence.
