Brendan is a member of the Professional Liability Department where he focuses his practice on the defense of auto manufacturers in all stages of their warranty litigation from pre-suit, arbitration and jury trials. Additionally, he represents insurance carriers in coverage disputes and alleged bad faith actions. Many of the coverage disputes involves windstorm claims, interior water damage claims, mold claims and remediation claims.
Brendan started his career as a public defender in Miami-Dade County, where he gained extensive courtroom and trial experience. He later went on to work at a civil defense firm where he eventually became a named partner. While there, he defended many major American and European automotive companies in both state and federal court, as well as at the administrative level. Brendan has tried cases throughout the state of Florida on behalf of his clients.
Brendan received his Juris Doctorate from Saint Thomas University and his Bachelor of Arts in English from the College of William and Mary.
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation
Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Finding that Proposal for Settlement Made by Carrier to Insured was not Ambiguous
March 1, 2026
Sec. First Ins. Co. v. Cincotta, 2025 WL 3714668 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying Security First Insurance Company’s motion for attorney’s fees. The trial court ruled that the proposal for settlement (PFS) served by Security First on the insureds, Dominick Cincotta and Dominick Cincotta on behalf of the deceased Aurea Cincotta, was ambiguous. The appellate court reversed finding that there was no ambiguity in the PFS when it was interpreted as a whole.The Cincottas purchased home insurance from Security First in 2014 through an insurance agency, Cochran Insurance, Inc. The Cincottas reported a fire loss to their home, which Security investigated. In the course of its investigation, Security First determined that the Cincottas failed to disclose a 2013 fire loss to the property on their insurance application to Security First. The Cincottas also failed to disclose a prior non-renewal of their insurance policy based upon the 2013 fire loss. Security First then rescinded the policy and denied coverage for the loss.Cincotta proceeded to file suit against both Security First and Cochran. The claim against Cochran was abated and the lawsuit against Security First proceeded on the question of coverage. During the litigation, Security First served a PFS that included the following language:“1. The party making the proposal is Security First Insurance Company (“Security First”). The party to whom the proposal is being made is Dominick Cincotta.2. This proposal resolves all damages that would otherwise be awarded to Dominick Cincotta in a final judgment in this action except for attorney’s fees and costs as set forth below.”Security First obtained summary judgment in its favor and moved to enforce the PFS. The trial court held a hearing on Security First’s motion for entitlement and found that Security First was the prevailing party and entitled to costs. The trial court denied the motion as to attorney’s fees, finding that the PFS was ambiguous based upon the language in the second paragraph, stating it was “unclear whether Security First is requiring the Cincotta’s’ to give up their claims against Cochran as part of this.”In reversing the trial court’s order, the Sixth DCA stated the PFS was sufficiently clear to inform Cincotta that the claim against Cochran was not being given up. The appellate court stated that while the second paragraph in isolation could be seen as vague, when the PFS was read as a whole, it was clear that the claims were limited to Security First. The appellate court pointed out that the PFS did not require dismissal against Cochran and, in fact, did not mention Cochran anywhere. The appellate court quoted language from Allen v. Nunez, 258 So. 3d 1207, 1211 (Fla. 2018) (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067, 1079 (Fla. 2006)) stating, “courts are discouraged from ‘nitpicking’ proposals for settlement to search for ambiguity.” The appellate court looked at paragraph one, which specifically identified Security First as the party making the proposal, as well as other paragraphs that identified Security First as the party that would be paying the settlement amount and being the party that would be dismissed if the proposal was accepted. Based on these factors, the appellate court found no ambiguity in the proposal for settlement and reversed the order denying Security First’s entitlement to attorney’s fees.
Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation
Appeals Court Reverses Verdict, Finds Trial Court Erred in Denying Motion to Dismiss and In Finding Late Notice Defense Was Waived When Alternative Policy Exclusions Were Raised in the Same Pleading
December 1, 2025
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying the insurance company’s motion to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the insured. Prior to trial, the trial court denied the insurance company’s motion to dismiss. During the trial, the trial court granted a directed verdict as to the late notice defense raised by the insurance company. The trial court ruled that the defense had been waived by the assertion of alternative policy exclusions in the same pleading. The appellate court found both the denial of the motion to dismiss and the granting of a directed verdict on the late notice defense to be error. On September 2, 2020, the insured reported that her property had been damaged by Hurricane Irma on September 10, 2017. The claim was denied by the insurance company because the insured failed to timely report the loss. The insured then filed a declaratory judgment action, which the insurance company moved to dismiss based upon the insured’s failure to plead that she had provided a pre-suit notice of intent to initiate litigation. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the statute requiring the notice of intent could not be applied retroactively to a policy issued before enactment of the statute. The insurance company then filed an answer, asserting affirmative defenses for late notice and for policy exclusions, including wear and tear and faulty workmanship. At trial, the trial court granted a directed verdict as to the late notice defense, finding that it was waived by the inclusion of the policy exclusion affirmative defenses in the answer. The appellate court found the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss. The court reiterated its holding in Cantens v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 388 So. 3d 242, 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), stating that the pre-suit notice of intent to initiate litigation was procedural in context and, therefore, applied to all policies, regardless of inception date. The appellate court also found the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict as to the late notice defense raised by the insurance company. The court stated that parties could plead multiple affirmative defenses in the alternative. Since the insurance company had properly raised late notice at the outset, it was not precluded from raising the defense at trial, despite pleading alternative affirmative defenses related to policy exclusions. The court found that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the late notice defense and, therefore, reversed the trial court. 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 Expands Florida Professional Liability Practice With Addition of Shareholder Brendan P. Smith in Orlando
October 27, 2025
