Michael A. Packer, Appellate Attorney in Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Michael is the firm's supervising attorney for the Insurance Services Practice Group in the state of Florida and a member of the firm's Board of Directors. The group assists insurers in all aspects of a coverage dispute, including responses to civil remedy notices of insurer violations, pre-suit investigations and coverage evaluations, declaratory judgment and bad faith litigation. In particular, Michael defends property insurers throughout Florida in first party coverage matters, where he responds to claims for sinkhole, windstorm, fire, mold, theft, and water losses. Michael's group also conducts examinations under oath and SIU investigations.

In both the state and federal courts, Michael has participated in a number of bench and jury trials through verdict, all of which resulted in either a defense verdict or a verdict which was less than the amount demanded.

In addition, Michael is often asked to serve as coverage and bad faith counsel in third party actions, including monitoring the defense of litigation, as well as trial. As part of this role, Michael is often asked to draft reservation of rights, declinations and prosecute declaratory relief actions.

Michael has substantial experience in alternative dispute resolution, having represented clients in thousands of mediations, neutral evaluations and arbitration proceedings. Michael routinely advises clients on the evaluation and resolution of multi-claimant matters, often times where the injuries and damages exceed the available policy limits.

Over the past ten years, Michael and his group have defended in excess of three hundred sinkhole lawsuits, as well as hundreds of other first party lawsuits. The group has defended a number of cases through trial and appeal, including four sinkhole trials during recent years. In addition, the group represents more than ten statewide insurance carriers in first party property damage lawsuits, including many of the largest insurance carriers in Florida.

Michael routinely speaks at regional and nationwide industry conferences, specifically addressing coverage issues under first party property and third party liability policies. He has also presented a number of seminars on auto negligence, uninsured motorist and bad faith claims. Michael frequently travels around the country to provide in-house claims seminars with claims professionals. In addition, he has lectured on defending first party property damage claims including sinkhole and mold claims, which included review and analysis of claims handling procedures, as well as recommendations for the same. Michael has also written numerous articles for industry publications addressing Florida-specific claim handling issues and insurance companies’ rights and obligations in defending first and third party coverage actions.

In 1994 Michael earned his Bachelor of Arts from the State University of New York at Albany. Subsequently, Michael obtained his juris doctor in 1997 from the University of Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, Florida, where he graduated cum laude.

Michael is married to Nicole Packer and they live with their three children in Weston, Florida.

Honors & Awards

•Florida Trend Legal Elite, NOTABLE Managing Partner (2025)
•AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell
•South Florida Legal Guide - Top Lawyers in Insurance Litigation Defense (2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021)
•South Florida Legal Guide - Top Lawyers in Insurance Litigation (2014)
•South Florida Legal Guide - Top Lawyers (2013 )
•Florida Trend's Legal Elite - Top Up and Comer (2012)

Classes/Seminars Taught

•Examinations Under Oath - What Claims Professionals Need to Know to Conduct an Effective EUO, ALM/PropertyCasualty360 Complex Claims Conference, February 26, 2024
•Investigating a Claim Under a Reservation of Rights - Strategies for Managing Claims that May Not be Covered, Florida Defense Lawyers Association’s Florida Liability Claims Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL, June 16, 2022
•What You Need to Know After you Go - Parts 1 and 2, CLM Claims College School of Property - Level 1 - Coverage, Virtual, 2021
•Current Issues and Case Law Affecting the Property Claims Arena, CLM Claims College School of Property - Level 3, Virtual, 2021
•Covid 19: To Be Property Damage or Not to Be Property Damage, CLM, January 2021
•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
•Protecting Your Clients' Interest During Settlement, WIND Conference, 2013
•American Conference Institute Bad Faith Litigation Conference (co-chairperson and lecturer) 2012
•American Conference Institute Bad Faith Litigation Conference (lecturer) 2011

Published Works

•'What Florida's 'Omnibus Insurance Bill' Means for the Duty to Defend, Appraisal Process,' Insurance Journal, June 17, 2019
•'Relief in Sight for Florida's Assignment of Benefits Crisis,' Daily Business Review, May 7, 2019
•“Constant or Repeated Seepage Over a Period of 14 Days or More,” Defense Digest, Vol. 24, No. 2, June 2018
•'Solving One of the Greatest Mysteries of Florida Property Law--Florida's Valued Policy Law,' Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 1, March 2016
•'Bill Would Change How Mitigation Companies Do Business,' Daily Business Review, March 3, 2015
•'Make Effective Mediation Your New Year's Resolution,' Claims Journal, Windstorm Conference Edition, January 2015
•Case Law Alerts, regular contributor, 2015-present
•' Why Insurers Shouldn't Produce Claims Files in Florida, ' Claims Journal, September 2014

Media Commentary

•'After 62 Years, Florida Appeals Court Drops the Expert Witness Rule on Attorney Fees,' Insurance Journal, March 26, 2026
•'Homeowners Have Post-Loss Duties Too, Florida Appeals Court Says in HCI Win,' Insurance Journal, March 20, 2025
•'Florida High Court Says Appraisals Can be Compelled Before Coverage Decided,' Insurance Journal, February 2, 2024
•'Florida Appeals Court Says Pre-suit Notice Requirement Not Retroactive,' Insurance Journal, November 29, 2023
•' What to Expect From Florida's AOB Reform Law,' Insurance Journal, June 17, 2019
•'Florida Supreme Court Rules Against Insurer in Concurrent Loss Case,' Insurance Journal, December 6, 2016

Results

Defense Verdict for Insurance Carrier in First Party Property, Breach of Contract Dispute in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County

A water heater leak in a garage caused direct physical damage to the property, and our client paid the plaintiffs $956.95 for damages sustained to the garage, after applying the $1,000 policy deductible. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant breached the contract of insurance by failing to fully indemnify them for all the property damage caused by the water leak. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed: (1) the defendant underpaid for the garage by not allowing for “detach and reset of the water heater” in the amount of $600; (2) water from the water heater leak into the garage traveled through the crawlspace of the garage and caused the master bathroom vanity to warp; and (3) there was damage to “one” loose tile located on the toe-kick of the vanity that cannot be matched, requiring the replacement of the entire continuous tile in the home. The plaintiffs claimed total damages in the amount of $52,930.95. We defended the case at trial, arguing that the damages were limited to only the garage. Furthermore, we presented a case to the jury premised upon science, that is, water could not have traveled through the crawlspace of the garage for nine feet and caused damage to the master bathroom vanity, as the plaintiffs claim, without defying the laws of gravity.

Thought Leadership

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Mere Speculation is not Enough to Demonstrate Prejudice After Late Notice

March 1, 2026

Bryan-Wilson, etc. v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 4D2024-1547The Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict in favor of Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company after it found Universal did not meet its burden to demonstrate it was prejudiced by the late notice of a plumbing loss. The subject claim was reported fifty-eight days after the alleged loss. Following the field adjuster’s inspection, coverage was afforded for the loss, and payment was issued. Suit was filed on behalf of the insureds for damages they claimed the insurer failed to pay. In response to the complaint, Universal raised (amongst others) failure to provide prompt notice of the loss as an affirmative defense and stated the failure prejudiced its investigation of the claim. At trial, when questioned as to how Universal was prejudiced, the corporate representative testified:Because during those 58 days that we weren't told of the loss, [the homeowner wife] had someone out there at the property, taking photos of the property as of October 14, 2019, and we have no idea . . . what else happened within that time span of those 58 days, which prejudiced our investigation because we're not aware if the damages we're seeing at the time that we're out there are actually in fact from what she's saying happened on September 1st.Following the close of evidence, both parties moved for directed verdict on the late notice issue. The court denied both motions and the jury found in favor of Universal. However, the appellate court found the factual basis for the claim of prejudice to be based on speculation. As the appellate court explained, the insurer had no evidence that the condition of the property had changed during the time period between the date of loss and the date the claim was reported. Rather, the claim of prejudice was due to the fact that the insurer did not know what happened to the property during the fifty-eight days and, therefore, it could have changed between the date of loss and when it was reported. Insomuch as the policy language required the failure to provide prompt notice of the loss to be prejudicial to the insurer, Florida law places the burden on the insurer to prove it has been prejudiced. In reversing the jury’s verdict, the appellate court found the insurer did not meet its burden by merely stating it could not determine what happened, if anything, to the property during the relevant time period.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Appellate Court Finds Term “Occurrence” Ambiguous as It Pertains to Parkland Mass Shooting

December 1, 2025

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals was recently tasked with determining whether the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL constituted a single occurrence or multiple occurrences pursuant to a commercial general liability (CGL) policy issued to the Sheriff of Broward County. This was particularly significant as the insurance policy provided coverage only after a $500,000 self-insured retention (SIR) and a $500,000 deductible were paid by the insured. If the mass shooting constituted multiple occurrences, the insured would have been required to satisfy the $500,000 SIR for each claim before the insurer would be obligated to pay any covered damages. The CGL policy defined “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition.”While the insurance company relied on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Koikos v. Travelers Insurance Co., 849 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2003) for its argument that the Parkland mass shooting constituted multiple occurrences, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insured and found the policy’s definition of “occurrence” to be ambiguous. As a result, the Eleventh Circuit explained that any ambiguity in an insurance policy is to be construed in favor of the insured. As such, the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the District Court that the Parkland mass shooting was a single occurrence for the purposes of the CGL policy issued by Evanston. While the Supreme Court in Koikos decided that a restaurant shooting in which two patrons were struck by two separate gunshots were two separate occurrences, it did so only as a result of finding the term “occurrence” to be ambiguous. Despite the fact that the ruling in Koikos resulted in a finding of multiple occurrences and the ruling in this matter found the mass shooting to be a single occurrence, the decisions do not conflict. Rather, the Eleventh Circuit followed the Florida Supreme Court’s Koikos decision as it found the almost identical definition of the term “occurrence” to be ambiguous and, therefore, construed in favor of the insured. In the Koikos case, construing the ambiguity in favor of the insured resulted in the outcome being multiple occurrences. In the present case, construing the ambiguity in favor of the insured resulted in the outcome being a single occurrence. 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.

News

Marshall Dennehey Promotes James Cole and Sunny Sparano to Lead The Firm’s Professional Liability Department and Announces New Board of Directors Appointments

January 5, 2026

Michael A. Packer Named a Florida Trend Legal Elite NOTABLE - Managing Partner

July 1, 2025