Alan C. Nash, Civil Rights Attorney in Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Alan Carroll “A.C.” Nash is a senior civil defense attorney and business leader whose practice focuses on the defense of insureds, corporations, and public entities in complex, high-exposure litigation. He concentrates on negligent security, wrongful death, product liability, automobile and commercial transportation claims, liquor liability, construction liability and premises liability matters.

A.C. also maintains a substantial public-sector and municipal defense practice, representing municipalities and law enforcement agencies in state and federal civil rights litigation, including claims alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution, and excessive force. His experience in this space includes defending matters throughout Florida in both trial and appellate courts.

A.C. serves as the Casualty Supervisor of the Fort Lauderdale office of Marshall Dennehey, where he oversees the day-to-day operations of the casualty department and leads a large team of attorneys handling complex and catastrophic-loss cases. In this role, he is responsible not only for legal strategy and quality control, but also for client relationships, attorney development, and overall practice performance.

Before joining Marshall Dennehey, A.C. was a trial associate at a Fort Lauderdale-based law enforcement and municipal defense firm with more than 30 years of history. Working closely with firm leadership, he played a key role in defending public entities and law enforcement officers in high-stakes civil rights litigation across Florida.

A.C. earned his juris doctor from Florida State University College of Law in 2007. While in law school, he served as a certified legal intern with the Second Judicial Circuit, trying approximately 40 jury and non-jury criminal cases. He was a member and coach of the Mock Trial Team, served as a student ambassador and traveling recruiter, sat on the Dean’s Cabinet, acted as the Fifth Circuit Governor for the American Bar Association, and received the Distinguished Pro Bono Award upon graduation.

A South Florida native, A.C. earned his undergraduate degree in Public Relations from the University of Florida, graduating early. Prior to law school, he worked in public relations and marketing, including managing state and national accounts for a Miami-based firm and later executing advertising and marketing programs for two Fortune 100 companies. This background continues to inform his approach to client development and litigation strategy.

A.C. is deeply committed to mentorship and community involvement. He mentors students at the elementary, secondary, undergraduate, and law school levels and has served in leadership and advisory roles with multiple professional and civic organizations.

Honors & Awards

•AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell
•'Best Mentors Award' by the Daily Business Review (2022)
•The Florida Bar Leadership Academy, fellow (2013 - 2014)
•Florida Legal Elite (2010, 2012)
•Florida Super Lawyer (2019-2025)
•Florida Super Lawyer Rising Star (2012-2018)
•Rated for Civil Litigation by Lead Counsel, a service of Thomson Reuters, 2015
•'Rising Star' by the Daily Business Review (2014)
•Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Professionalism Panel (2017-2025)
•South Florida Legal Guide, Up & Comer (2018-2021)
•Thomson Reuters Stand-Out Lawyer (2025)

Classes & Seminars Taught

•AI: The Cat 5 Storm Affecting Your Claims and Employees, Florida Broward County RIMS Chapter, April 15, 2026
•Negligent Security Claims - Premises Under Attack, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, July 25, 2025
•Florida’s New Civil Procedure and Rules, Florida Tampa Bay RIMS Chapter, May 21, 2025
•The Yellow Brick Road to Litigation Success - What Happens When Carriers and Defense Counsel Team Up? CLM Annual Conference, Dallas, TX, April 10, 2025
•Relevant Procedural Rule Changes for Risk Manager, Broward County RIMS Chapter Meeting, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, January 15, 2025
•DE&I - Your Ally in the War for Talent, Florida RIMS Educational Conference, August 1, 2024
•New Florida Tort Reform Changes Under HB 837, Tampa Bay RIMS Chapter Meeting, Tampa, FL, October 18, 2023
•Civil Rights for Uncivil Times, International Association of Claims Professionals (IACP) 2023 Conference, June 22, 2023
•Claims Inflation in Property & Casualty Litigation, ILG 360 London Annual Conference 2023, March 15, 2023
•Talkin' Bout My Generations, RIMS - Broward County Chapter Meeting & Presentation, October 19th, 2022
•Talkin' Bout My Generations, 2022 Florida RIMS Educational Conference, Naples, FL, July 27th, 2022
•Successful Strategies for Effective Mediation, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, July 20, 2022
•Roundtable Discussion: Civil Litigation and Nailing On-Campus Interviews, FSU College of Law - Black Law Students Association, November 8, 2021
•Litigation & Trial Considerations When Representing/Defending Law Enforcement, NAPO’s Annual 2021 Legal Seminar, West Palm Beach, FL, October 4, 2021
•Anti-Social Practical Strategies Insurers Can Implement - panel member, 2021 DRI-IADC Virtual Roundtable, September 2021
•Civil Litigation State of Affairs - The Impact of COVID-19 in Florida & What’s Next, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, June 2021
•Negligent Security: Foreseeable Crime - Believable Risk, ILG Virtual Conference, March 22, 2021
•56 Feds are Coming: Strategies Using the Upcoming Florida Summary Judgment Standard, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, January 15, 2021
•Negligence 101 - A Pennsylvania and Florida Legal Overview, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, December 15, 2020
•Negligent Tenants Expose Negligent Landlords, Marshall Dennehey Florida Claims Symposium - Casino Royale, Tampa, FL, September 20, 2018
•Moderator: In-House Counsel Roundtable, DRI Retail & Hospitality Conference, Chicago, IL, May, 2018
•Panelist: Broward County Bar Association - Young Lawyer's Section Boot Camp, June 6, 2017
•Featured Speaker/Panelist: Making The Career Decision That Is Best For You, Atlantic Technical College 2017 College & Career Summit, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, January 26, 2017
•Defending Negligent Security Claims, RIMKUS' 9th Annual CLE/CE Seminar, October 21, 2016
•Negligent Security Claims: If the Crime is Foreseeable, the Risk is Believable, RIMS - Central Florida Chapter, November 19, 2015
•Using Crime Grids in Negligent Security Claims, Marshall Dennehey Florida Claims Symposium - The Best Defense is a Good Offense, Orlando, FL, September 17, 2014
•Diversity for Success Seminar, DRI, Moderator, 2013
•Stand Your Ground Forum, Nova Law School, Moderator, 2012
•Paralegal Program - Professor of Contracts, Legal Research/Writing and Constitutional Law, Brown Mackie College, 2009 - 2010

Published Works

•'Best Mentors: Alan Carroll 'A.C.' Nash Learns the Motivations of his Mentees Before Guiding Them,' the Daily Business Review, May 9, 2022
•'Removing That Slip and Fall Case to Federal Court,' For The Defense, February 2016
•' Negligent Tenants Leave Room for Exposed Landlords, ' Daily Business Review, Personal Injury Special Report, July 27, 2015
•'Let’s Have A Look At The Footage,' Law Enforcement Technology, March 2014, co-author
•'You Slip. You Fall. You Lose. Florida's Updated Transient Foreign Substance Statute,' Defense Digest, Vol. 19, No. 4, December 2013

Pro Bono Activities

•Fort Lauderdale Community Development Corporation, Vice President, 2012
•Fort Lauderdale Community Development Corporation, Board Member, 2008 - Present

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

On the Pulse...The Blitz Is Coming: Pranks, Perception and the Risk of Draft Day

June 1, 2025

In April, the high-stakes world of the NFL Draft took over the airwaves. Millions were made and fumbled away as each round unfolded. Scouting reports were dissected, 40-yard dash times debated, and the patience of each player was tested. Beyond the fanfare stood a cautionary tale for civil defense lawyers. In litigation, as in football, perception, reputation, and outside interference can blindside the best-prepared team. Shadeur Sanders and his father, Deion, commanded headlines throughout the college football season and into the draft. However, it was Jaxson Ulbrich, son of Falcons defensive coordinator, Jeff Ulbrich, who stole a moment of spotlight both infamously and immaturely. After obtaining a private draft-day phone number, Jaxson prank-called Sanders, whose draft stock had unexpectedly fallen. He claimed that Sanders would be drafted by the Saints but would have to wait. While it was quickly revealed that he had been “trolled,” this event signifies how easily misinformation can spread and how pranks can carry real consequences. The NFL fined Jeff Ulbrich $100,000, and the Falcons organization was fined $250,000. In civil defense cases, surprises, misinformation, public manipulation, and ambush tactics are commonplace. Plaintiff lawyers, while mostly ethical, can sometimes push the envelope. According to the ABA, almost 300,000 lawyers are publicly disciplined for ethical misconduct each year. Therefore, a video that paints your client in unfavorable light, one that it is selectively edited, like Shannon Sharpe alleges, or one that is outright misleading, may become the order of the day. Once public, the reputational harm spreads faster than the truth can catch up. Headlines follow, juries are tainted, and the reputation of your client can plummet overnight. Insurers then start asking hard questions. The call to Sanders wasn’t just a joke. It could be actionable. In Florida and many other jurisdictions, the actions of Ulbrich could possibly be considered tortious interference with a current or prospective business relationship. This tort occurs when a third party intentionally disrupts a known business relationship, thereby causing damages. More specifically, the elements of the tort for tortious interference with a business relationship includes: (1) the existence of a business relationship or contract, (2) knowledge of the business relationship or contract on the part of the defendant, (3) an intentional and unjustified interference with the business relationship, and (4) damages. See Howard v. Murray, 184 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). An action for tortious interference with a prospective business relationship requires a business relationship evidenced by an actual and identifiable understanding or agreement which, in all probability, would have been completed had the defendant not interfered. See Ferguson Transp., Inc. v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 687 So. 2d 821, 822 (Fla. 1996).Although numerous explanations for his draft slide exist (i.e., his lack of a real agent, combine opt-out, alleged poor interviews, etc.), Sanders could argue that the prank compounded doubt, shifted teams’ perceptions about drafting him, and thereby contributed to his slide. The same dynamic applies in tort litigation. When perception turns, the liability profile of a company can collapse, even without wrongdoing. In 2005, Anna Ayala alleged that she found a human finger in her chili at a Wendy’s in California. After a month-long investigation, it was determined that the incident was a hoax orchestrated by Ayala. Unfortunately, Wendy’s suffered work cutbacks as business fell as much as 50% in some areas. In 2020, rumors began on Reddit that Wayfair was allegedly involved in child trafficking. The claims were that their throw pillows and storage cabinets were a front for these nefarious activities. Social media ran with this information, complete with photographs, screen shots, and celebrity statements. The rumors were a hoax. In 2011, not even the Golden Arches was safe. A photo was captured and spread on social media that provided that, as an insurance measure due, in part, to a string of robberies, certain customers would be required to pay an additional fee of $1.50 per transaction. This, too, was a hoax, and McDonald’s stated: “This is, unfortunately, an example of how rumors can out speed the truth. Over the last 48 hours, we've been tweeting and striving to clarify that this is a hoax.” Nevertheless, the public was slow to believe McDonald’s statement, and the hashtag #SeriouslyMcDonalds trended.The law is catching up to the age of virility and meme culture. However, as the aforementioned warnings demonstrate, hoaxes can have impacts that far outlive the “joke.” It can be a draft-day prospect losing millions or a client losing trust; in all scenarios, narrative controls and perception matters. Whether it is Sanders waiting for a life-changing call or a business defending its decades of good will, the threats aren’t always head-on. Sometimes, the blitz is coming from your blindside. Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 2, June 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Legal Update for Florida Civil Litigation

Florida Passes Tort Reform: What You Need to Know

March 27, 2023

On March 24, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 837, “Civil Remedies,” into law. HB 837 contains sweeping tort reform that will uproot the landscape of Florida civil litigation. The changes apply to causes of action accruing after the effective date-March 24, 2023. Prior to the bill becoming law, plaintiffs’ firms, anticipating this monumental change, filed approximately 100,000 lawsuits. These filings represent approximately 77% of the total cases filed since January 1, 2023.[1] Below is a brief summary of the changes and the potential impact the new law brings. NEW MODIFIED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE STANDARD HB 837 changes Florida’s standard from “pure” comparative negligence to “modified” comparative negligence. This aligns Florida with a majority of the other states who have already adopted a “modified” comparative negligence standard. This new standard does not apply in medical negligence actions. Previously, a plaintiff was entitled to recover a percentage of damages proportionate to the degree of fault of the defendant. Under “modified” comparative negligence, if a plaintiff is more negligent than the defendant, the plaintiff cannot recover. This new standard will likely reduce the number of cases brought in which the plaintiff was the predominant cause of his or her own harm. TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR GENERAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS HB 837 amends section 95.11, Florida Statutes, which sets forth the statutes of limitations for various causes of action. The bill now reduces the statute of limitations for general negligence from four years to two years. This may encourage plaintiffs to file suit earlier as plaintiffs and their counsel will prepare their cause of action and evaluate the validity of their claims at an earlier juncture. This will also increase the ability to obtain evidence closer to the time of the alleged incident. Where liability is contested, plaintiffs may be deterred from filing suit sooner. The two-year statute of limitations could also be used as leverage to effectuate earlier settlement and resolution of claims, especially pre-suit. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN PAST AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES HB 837 changes the evidence that plaintiffs can introduce to establish past and future medical expenses. Previously, with the exception of services paid by Medicare or Medicaid, plaintiffs were permitted to board the full amount of medical bills charged for services rendered. This was without evidence of any adjustments or reductions and was prior to a post-verdict setoff for adjustments by private insurance. If plaintiffs had Medicare or Medicaid, only the amounts actually paid by Medicare or Medicaid were admissible as evidence of past medical expenses. Now, the evidence offered to prove the amount of damages for past medical bills that have been satisfied is limited to the evidence of the amount actually paid, regardless of the source of payment. For unpaid past medical bills, admissible evidence will depend whether the plaintiff has health care coverage, Medicare, or Medicaid: If plaintiff has health care coverage but obtains treatment under letter of protection or does not submit charges, evidence of amount that health care coverage would have paid to satisfy charges, plus plaintiff’s share of medical expenses, is admissible. Evidence of reasonable amounts that were billed to plaintiff for medically-necessary treatment or services is also admissible. If plaintiff does not have insurance, or has Medicare or Medicaid, evidence of 120 percent of Medicare reimbursement rate in effect is admissible. If there is no applicable Medicare rate, evidence admissible is 170 percent of applicable state Medicaid rate. Damages that may be recovered may not include any amount in excess of the evidence of medical treatment and services expenses admitted. Further, it cannot exceed the sum of amounts actually paid, amounts necessary to satisfy charges due and owing, and the amounts necessary for reasonable and necessary future medical treatment and services. For future medical bills, the “usual and customary” amount also depends on whether the plaintiff has health care coverage: If plaintiff has health care coverage other than Medicare or Medicaid, evidence of amount that could be satisfied if charges were submitted, in addition to portion of medical expenses under insurance contract, is admissible. If plaintiff does not have insurance, or has Medicare or Medicaid, evidence of 120 percent of Medicare reimbursement rate in effect is admissible. If there is no applicable Medicare rate, evidence admissible is 170 percent of applicable state Medicaid rate. LETTERS OF PROTECTION AND REFERRALS MUST BE DISCLOSED If a plaintiff treats under a letter of protection, the letter of protection must be disclosed, as must all bills for medical expenses, which must be itemized and coded. Whether the plaintiff was referred for treatment under the letter of protection must also be disclosed, along with who referred the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is referred for treatment under a letter of protection by their attorney, disclosure of the referral is permitted, notwithstanding the attorney-client privilege, as the financial relationship between the law firm and the medical provider is relevant to the issue of bias of the testifying medical provider. This new law overturns the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Worley v. Central Florida Young Men’s Christian Ass’n, Inc., 228 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 2017). BAD FAITH - NEW DUTY OF INSUREDS AND IMPACT ON DAMAGES Now, in every bad faith action in Florida, the insured, claimant, and/or their representative have a duty to act in good faith in providing information, making demands, setting deadlines, and attempting to settle the claim. The trier of fact may consider whether the insured, claimant and/or their representative acted in good faith and may reasonably reduce the amount of damages awarded. Mere negligence remains insufficie