×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell Professional AssociationPartner
Candy L. Messersmith
Pro

Candy L. Messersmith

Not yet reviewed

300 South Orange Avenue, P.O. Box 1873, Orlando, FL 32801

Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith and Appellate

About Candy L. Messersmith

Candy Messersmith focuses her practice in the areas of insurance coverage and bad faith and appellate law. She represents clients in class action litigation and insurance claims involving automobile (personal and commercial), homeowners, excess/umbrella, commercial general liability, marine, and life insurance. Candy also has an appellate practice with appeals to all Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court.

Prior to joining RumbergerKirk, she clerked for Chief Justice Charles Wells of the Florida Supreme Court.

Awards & Honors

•Florida Super Lawyers Rising Star, 2009

Articles & Presentations

•Co-Host, 'Breaking Down Bad Faith: Insurers’ Good Faith Duties and Defending Bad Faith Claims,' Legally Qualified Podcast, February 2023

Candy's News and Insights

08.22.2023
Firm News

Second DCA Affirms Busch Gardens Summary Judgment in Heather Bennett v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment LLC

RumbergerKirk attorneys Candy Messersmith, Carie Hall and Rob Blank won...

07.10.2023
Firm News

Sixth DCA Affirms Sea World Defense Verdict

RumbergerKirk attorneys Candy Messersmith, Rob Blank and Carie Hall won...

02.15.2023
Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith

Breaking Down Bad Faith: Insurers’ Good Faith Duties and Defending Bad Faith Claims

Insurance companies facing a bad faith claim are at risk...

03.25.2019
Beyond the Bio

Celebrating Women’s History Month

Women’s History Month commemorates and encourages the study, observance and...

01.16.2017
Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith

Florida 4th DCA Reiterates Insurer’s Negligence Not Enough to Sustain Bad Faith Claim

Directs Judgment to be Entered in Favor of Insurer In...

06.19.2015
Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith

Court Imposes Unlimited Exposure on PIP Insurer

In Spaid v. Integon Indemnity Corp., Case No. 1D13-2343 (Fla....

02.05.2015
Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith

In Coverage Case, Florida Court Expansively Construes 'Costs' to Include 'Attorneys Fees'

In GEICO General Ins. Co. v. Hollingsworth, 2015 WL 376406...

01.27.2015
Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith

First DCA Denies Citizens Property Insurance Corporation Immunity From Bad Faith Claims

In Perdido Sun Condominium Association, Inc. v. Citizens Property Ins....

10.09.2013
Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith

The Fifth District Court of Appeal Addresses Number of Occurrences in Dog Bite Case

Maddox v. Florida Farm Bureau General, Case No. 5D12-3577; 2013...

08.30.2013
Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith

Second District Upholds Exclusion For Bodily Injury To Non-Resident Relative Insured

In Motzenbecker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., the...

 

Candy L. Messersmith (Orlando, Florida) View website

Reviews for Candy L.

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Other 2
    • Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith
    • Appellate

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Partner
    Firm Name
    Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell Professional Association
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Notable Cases: Heather Bennett v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment LLC d/b/a Busch Gardens: On July 14, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's granting of Busch Gardens' Motion for Final Summary Judgment. Busch Gardens allowed local fire departments to use its premises for training classes. Plaintiff claimed she was injured during a rescue training class on Congo River Rapids. The trial court entered Final Summary Judgment, finding Busch Gardens is entitled to enforce the rescue company's liability waiver as both an agent
    volunteer of the rescue company conducting the class,
    also finding Busch Gardens did not breach any duty owed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff argued several different grounds to attempt to convince the appellate court to reverse the trial court's decision, but the Second District rejected all of them, issuing a per curiam affirmance without an opinion.
    Susan Davis v. Sea World of Florida, LLC: The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial on July 3, 2023. Plaintiff's counsel argued several different grounds to attempt to convince the appellate court to reverse the trial court's decision, but the Sixth District rejected all of them, issuing a per curiam affirmance without an opinion.

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    1999, Florida
    U.S. Supreme Court
    U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit
    U.S. District Courts of Florida (Northern, Middle, Southern)
    Memberships

    Professional

    •Orange County Bar Association

  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    University of Florida, College of Law
    Class of 1999
    J.D.
    with high honors
    Other Education
    Florida International University
    Class of 1996
    B.A.
    Business Administration

    Florida International University
    Class of 1996
    B.A.
    magna cum laude
  • Personal Details & History
    Age
    Born in 1970
    Hollywood, Florida, May 8, 1970

Activity

Legal Community Contributions

Email Candy L. Messersmith

Case type is required.
A valid zip code is required.
A valid city is required.
State is required.
Country is required.
Outside the US or Canada?
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

Contact Information

First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
City:
State:
Country:
Case Description:
Contact Information
First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
Phone Number:
Return to Profile

Attorneys FAQs

  • What year was this attorney first admitted to the bar?
    Candy L. Messersmith was admitted in 1999 to the State of Florida.
  • Is this attorney admitted to practice in any U.S. Federal Courts?
    Candy L. Messersmith is admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and United States Supreme Court.
  • How many attorneys are in this law firm?
    Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell Professional Association has 87 attorneys at this location.
  • What law school did this attorney attend?
    Candy L. Messersmith attended University of Florida, College of Law.

Attorney information displayed in this FAQ section is based upon information the lawyer has included on their profile, in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals.

These FAQs include information about a lawyer's background, but do not evaluate their knowledge of the law, past performance on individual cases, personality, or communication skills.

It is solely the responsibility of lawyers and law firms to ensure that any information they provide complies with all applicable laws and rules of professional conduct.

You should be aware that the information we rely upon may not be comprehensive, or frequently updated.

Always research the lawyer further to get a better understanding of their license credentials, disciplinary status, background, and experience.

Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions