As a member of the firm's Professional Liability Department, Corey focuses her practice on representing and defending insurance companies in insurance coverage disputes and first-party property litigation.
Corey is a 2005 graduate of Florida Atlantic University where she received her bachelors' degree in History and Political Science. She received her juris doctor in 2011 from Nova Southeastern University's Shepard Broad Law Center. While in law school, Corey was a subscriptions and articles editor for the ILSA Journal for International and Comparative Law. She also interned at the Broward County Court Family Law division under Judge Melinda Kirsch-Brown.
Outside of the office, Corey is a passionate ultra marathon runner. In May 2019, she was the #1 overall female finisher and the second overall finisher in the Dunes 50 Miler, an off-road running race in Hobe Sound, Florida. The course includes hard-packed single track trails and several miles of rolling loose sugar sand dunes. Corey finished the 50-mile course in a little over 14 hours.
Honors & Awards
•The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch, Insurance Law (2022-2025)
Published Works
•“Florida’s New Property Insurance Statute Changes Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs in First Party Homeowner’s Insurance Cases,” Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 5, December 2021
•'Help for Florida Insurers Drowning in Water Damage Claims,' Insurance Journal, Florida Edition, November 2019
•“Scope! Scope! Scope! Diaz v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Company and Its Effect on the Insurer’s Option to Repair,” Defense Digest, Vol. 23, No. 3, September 2017
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation
Sixth DCA Affirms Insureds May Present Replacement-Cost Evidence After Wrongful Claim Denial
March 1, 2026
Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez and Cuevas, Case No. 6D2024-1194, 2026 WL 370220 (Fla. 6th DCA Feb. 6, 2026).Universal issued a homeowners’ insurance policy to the plaintiffs, which provided replace cost value for covered damages. The subject policy stated it would pay, at the least, actual cash value of the loss less than any deductible, then pay any “remaining amounts necessary to perform such repairs as work is performed and expenses are incurred.” After issuance, the plaintiffs filed a claim for damages caused by a storm. Universal denied the claim for damage and the plaintiffs sued for breach of contract. During trial, the plaintiffs testified that they did not make any repairs yet and, over Universal’s objection, presented a contractor’s estimate of the replacement cost value of the repairs necessary to fix the property. Universal argued that since no repairs had been made, the correct measure of damages was actual cash value, per the terms of the subject policy. The trial court overruled Universal’s objection to the replacement cost value estimate, presented and overruled a Motion of Limine and, after the jury ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, a motion for directed verdict regarding exclusion of the replacement cost value estimate. Universal appealed the decision.The Sixth DCA reviewed Florida Statute Section 627.7011(3)(a), which has similar language to Universal’s policy provision regarding replacement cost value and initially paying actual cash value. The court noted that the Second, Third, and Fourth DCAs had recently opined on the issue at hand: may policy language that allows a carrier to deny a claim, and, when an insured sues their carrier for coverage, bar the insured from presenting evidence of replacement cost value, as the policy initially requires payment of actual cash value? The Third DCA determined that an insured can present replacement cost value evidence, finding that Florida Statute 627.7011(3)(a) is based on the carrier providing coverage for the loss, not an insured suing their carrier for breach of contract after wrongfully denying the claim. The Fourth DCA came to the opposite conclusion. However, there was an important fact that the Fourth had to consider: the insureds sold their property without making any repairs. Thus, repairs by the insureds could never be made.The Sixth DCA followed the opinions of the Second and Third DCAs (and the dissenting opinion from the Fourth DCA), finding that the language of the policy and Florida Statute are for “covered property loss” not during litigation when a carrier has been accused of wrongfully denying a claim. While Universal argued that the opinion is in conflict with Citizens Prop. Ins. Co. v. Manor House, LLC, 313 So.2d 579 (Fla. 2021), the court explained that the specific issue in Manor House was extra-contractual consequential damages, not evidence of contractual damages. As a result, the decision was affirmed.
Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation
Florida Court Upholds Summary Judgment: EUO Admission of Misrepresented Address Deemed Admissible Evidence
December 1, 2025
After a motor vehicle accident, the insured received medical treatment from the plaintiff and assigned all his rights under his insurance policy to the plaintiff. The carrier took the insured’s Examination Under Oath (EUO), where he admitted to moving prior to executing the insurance application, which had his prior address listed. The carrier disclaimed coverage due to the insured’s misrepresentation of his primary residence on his insurance application. The carrier stated that had they known the insured’s correct address, they either would not have issued the policy or charged a higher premium. Thereafter, the carrier provided a notice of rescission and returned the insured’s premium. The plaintiff sent a demand to the carrier. In reply, the carrier advised that the claim was denied due to material misrepresentations on the insurance application. The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract. The carrier moved for summary judgment based on the insured’s admission at the EUO. The plaintiff argued the EUO was hearsay and not admissible as evidence for summary judgment. The trial court determined the EUO was admissible and ruled in favor of the carrier.The plaintiff appealed, arguing that none of the summary judgment evidence was admissible, specifically the EUO, which was hearsay and not provided in compliance with Florida Statute 92.33. The Third District Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the EUO was inadmissible just because it was made outside of court and offered for the truth of the matter asserted. The appellate court found that Florida’s summary judgment standard [which reflected the federal standard] allows for hearsay as long as it can be presented in admissible form at trial. In the instant case, the insured was available to testify to the misrepresented address at trial, thus, it was proper summary judgment evidence. In regard to violation of Florida Statute 92.33, requiring the insured receive a copy of a written statement, the court found that no authority was provided advising that an EUO was a written statement under Florida Statute 92.33, but even if it was, there was no allegation that the carrier refused to provide it. It was also undisputed that the plaintiff received a copy of the EUO. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s final order 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.
News
Marshall Dennehey Celebrates 25th Anniversary of Advanced Trial Advocacy & Mock Trial Program
July 15, 2025
