Danielle N. Robinson, General Attorney in Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Danielle is a shareholder in the firm's Professional Liability Department and serves as Co-Chair of the Insurance Services Practice Group as well as Co-Chair of the First Party Property Practice Group. She focuses her practice on the defense of insurance carrier clients in matters involving coverage issues and alleged bad faith actions. Many of these coverage disputes are derived from claims involving windstorm, sinkhole, fire, mold, theft and water losses. Additionally, she represents automobile manufacturers in lemon law and warranty litigation. She defends these companies in breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and rescission lawsuits in Florida and United States federal courts from pre-suit through trial. Danielle has also handled several appeals for her clients involving issues in civil defense and litigation.

Danielle is a 2002 graduate of Florida State University and earned her J.D. from St. Thomas University School of Law in 2005. She is admitted to practice in Florida, as well as the United States District Court for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida.

Honors & Awards

•AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell
•South Florida Legal Guide, Up & Comer, Insurance Litigation Defense, 2019-2021
•Florida Super Lawyers Rising Star-Insurance Coverage and Civil Litigation Defense (2014-2015)

Classes/Seminars Taught

•Mediation and Pre-Suit Claims Handling - Best Practices, Client Seminar, August 2016
•Insurance Coverage and Bad-Faith Insurance Issues Under Florida Law, Marshall Dennehey Florida Claims Symposium - The Best Defense is a Good Offense, Orlando, FL, September 17, 2014

Published Works

•“Decision Requiring Strict Compliance with 627.7152 Provides Insurance Carriers with Another Tool to Combat Litigation of Assignment of Benefit Claims,” Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022
•'Enforceability of Proposals for Settlement in Actions Requesting Declaratory Relief,' Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 4, December 2016

Results

Summary Judgment Achieved in First-Party Coverage Lawsuit

We won summary judgment in the U.S.D.C. for the Middle District of Florida in a first-party coverage case challenging the prompt notice of an insurance claim. The plaintiff alleged extensive damage to the insured premises, including the alleged need to tear out and access the cast iron plumbing for its full replacement following a toilet overflow at the property. The plaintiff failed to report the loss for 20 months following the alleged date of loss. In a written motion, Carolin and Danielle argued that the plaintiff cannot rebut the presumption of prejudice because, at the time the insurance carrier investigated the loss, there was no actual damage to the property. The court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of our client.

Thought Leadership

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Third DCA Finds Two-Year Delay in Reporting Property Damage Violates Prompt-Notice Obligation

March 1, 2026

Security First Insurance Company v. Moreno, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D59 (January 7, 2026)This case involves a claim for property damage allegedly caused by Hurricane Irma on September 10, 2017. However, the damage was reported to the carrier more than two years later on April 22, 2020. The carrier determined a portion of the claim was covered, but the covered damages were under the $6,000 windstorm deductible.The insureds filed suit a short time later, alleging the carrier breached the policy by failing to fully compensate them for the loss. At the trial, one of the insureds testified that he immediately noticed roof tiles on the ground, dislodged on the roof, and damage to a fence, however, no interior water leaks were reported. The insured testified two months later, in November 2017, claiming he noticed water leaks in the garage and family room, and put a tarp on the roof at that time. The insured testified the water stains inside the home grew and a few months after he initially noticed, he observed another water stain in the living room. The insured testified he did not report the claim for over two years because he “had personal family, personal issues going on.”The carrier moved for a directed verdict at the close of the insureds’ case, and again at the close of their case, requesting the court find there was a failure to provide prompt notice. The court denied the motions, ruling it was a jury question. The jury found the carrier did not prove the insureds failed to provide late notice and awarded $47,500.00 to the insureds. The carrier appealed the denials of the motions for directed verdict on the prompt notice issue.The Third DCA reversed the denial of the motions for directed verdict. The court noted the insured testified he observed water stains and put a tarp up more than two years before he reported the loss. Thus, the Third DCA found that because the insured acknowledged he knew he had property damage for over two years but did not report it due to personal and family issues, the notice was not prompt. The Third DCA remanded the case for a new trial solely on the issue of whether the carrier was prejudiced by the failure to provide prompt notice.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

First District Court of Appeals Affirms Carrier’s Payment of Actual Cash Value in Hurricane Sally Insurance Dispute; the Breach Must Occur Prior to Filing the Complaint

December 1, 2025

Hurricane Sally caused damage to the insureds’ residence in September 2020 when rainwater leaked into the interior of the residence. The carrier inspected the property, and an estimate was prepared totaling $20,535.73, the replacement cost value. After non-recoverable depreciation of $256.72, recoverable depreciation in the amount of $6,145.81 and the deductible of $6,008 were taken into consideration, a payment totaling $8,125.20 was issued to the insureds. The insured filed suit for breach of contract in June 2021. Prior to trial, the insureds provided only an estimate prepared by a public adjuster that was approximately $100,000 more than the estimate prepared by the carrier. At trial, competing estimates by general contractors, both created years after the complaint was filed, were entered into evidence and testimony was provided regarding the estimates, both of which exceeded the estimate upon which payment was made. Both parties moved for directed verdict, which were denied. The jury found the insureds failed to prove the carrier breached the policy, and judgment was entered in the carrier’s favor. The insureds appealed. In its decision, the appellate court noted that the initial burden is on the carrier to show it paid at least the actual cash value of the insured loss. Once the carrier provides the estimate and pays the actual cash value as estimated, the burden shifts to the insured to prove that the amount of the payment did not reflect the fully insured loss. Here, the carrier paid the actual cash value as estimated, and no evidence was provided to show that payment did not reflect the actual cash value of the fully insured loss. No evidence was provided as to a disagreement of the actual cash value prior to filing the complaint for breach of contract. The only estimates provided were prepared years later and after the complaint had been filed. Therefore, the court found the jury was correct in finding there was no breach of the policy as of the filing of the complaint and affirmed judgment in favor of the carrier. Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation - December 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.