As a member of the Professional Liability Department, Carolin Pacheco focuses a part of her practice on first-party insurance coverage claims, defending insurance carriers in a wide range of disputes. She also defends insurers in matters pertaining to coverage and bad faith claims, and assists them through pre-suit investigations and arbitrations.
Carolin also represents condominium association boards in directors and officers suits, as well as real estate agents, brokers and appraisers in errors and omissions claims. She also concentrates a portion of her practice, litigating FDCPA claims and suits brought by debtors, against the collection services assigned to recover the debt.
Before joining Marshall Dennehey, Carolin was an Assistant Public Defender with the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida in Orange and Osceola County. She focused her practice on criminal defense for indigent clients. During this time, she litigated various cases ranging from criminal traffic infractions to property damage and violent crimes from initial arrest to jury trial and sentencing.
Carolin graduated from the University of Central Florida in 2008 with a Bachelor of Arts in Legal Studies and earned her juris doctor from Stetson University College of Law in 2015. While in law school, Carolin was a law clerk at a general civil litigation firm, where she worked on cases involving breach of contract, landlord-tenant law, and family law. She was also a law clerk for the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Middle District of Florida. Carolin had an active role in her law school's campus activities where she served as a Student Ambassador, she was the president of the Immigration Law Student Association and the secretary of the Hispanic Bar Student Association.
Outside her law practice, Carolin enjoys exploring Central Florida.
Honors & Awards
•The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch, Insurance Law (2021-2026)
Published Works
•“'Dodge v. People's Trust Insurance' and Its Effect on Coverage of Cast Iron Pipes Claims,” November 1, 2021, Daily Business Review
•“Enforceability of Conditions Precedent and the Effect of Edwards v. SafePoint Ins. Co.,” Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 4, September 2021
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
Florida’s Fifth District Reaffirms Appellate Consensus on Assignment of Benefits Contract Requirements
March 1, 2026
The Kidwell Group LLC dba AQA aao John Fortner v Citizens Property, Case No. 5D2024-1843 (December 19, 2025)The Fifth District Court of Appeals rendered a decision further upholding the requirements set forth within Section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, finding valid an assignment of benefits, even though the insurance company argued that the assignment company’s purported paperwork was not detailed enough to satisfy the statutory requirements to render the contract valid and enforceable.The underlying action concerned an assignment of benefits that attached an invoice as its so-called “Itemized Per-Unit Cost Invoice' that consisted of assessment services to prepare an engineering report with a repair plan for an estimated $3,000. The assignment agreement stated that both parties acknowledged that the itemized per-unit cost estimate/invoice was legally binding. Citizens declined to pay and argued that the contract did not contain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services the assignee had to perform. The Kidwell Group filed suit, claiming that Citizens breached its insurance agreement by failing to pay for the engineer report. Citizens ultimately moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the assignment agreement was invalid because it failed to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a)4. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice after a re-hearing.The court opined that the plaintiff’s assignment agreement and the incorporated invoice plainly comport with the dictates of section 627.7152(2)(a)4 - an engineer report with repair plan. In reaching its decision, the Fifth District noted that the trial judge who dismissed the case failed to follow the Fourth District's SafePoint decision, even though that ruling was binding precedent. Specifically citing to prior decisions from the Third and Fourth districts (In Kidwell Group, LLC v. SafePoint Insurance Co., 376 So. 3d 48, 51-52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)), where the Fourth District determined that identical language within The Kidwell Group’s assignment agreement and incorporated invoice was “sufficiently detailed” to comply with section 627.7152(2)(a).As it happens, the Third, Fourth, and Fifth District Courts are in agreement as to how to interpret section 627.7152(2)(a) as it pertains to similar engineering reports assignment agreements.
Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation
Fourth District Court Held Trial and Appellate Courts May Not Reweigh Evidence on Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, Reversing Decision
December 1, 2025
In a recent opinion from the Fourth District Court of Appeals, the court found that it is not the function of a trial judge or the appellate court to reweigh evidence on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, reversing the trial court’s final judgment. The homeowners brought a declaratory judgment action against their insurer in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit after the insurer denied coverage for roof and interior damage to their house, allegedly caused by a hurricane. After this trial, the jury found that the hurricane created an opening in the homeowners’ roof that allowed rainwater to enter their residence and that their insurer failed to prove the damage was the result of wear and tear. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and set aside the jury’s verdict, concluding that neither the homeowners nor their expert specifically identified a specific peril-created opening and that the photographs of the roof showed no storm-related damage. The homeowners appealed.Before the trial, the insurer attempted summary judgment, arguing that the homeowners had failed to present evidence to prove a hurricane created an opening in their roof that allowed rainwater to enter their home. The motion for summary judgment was denied, and the trial court found that a genuine issue of material fact existed for the factfinder to resolve regarding whether the roof opening was caused by a hurricane or by wear and tear. Thus, at the summary judgment stage, the trial court found that causation was a genuinely disputed issue of fact. During the trial, the insurer relied on its field adjuster as their expert, who provided evidence of a lack of a storm-created opening and evidence to support deterioration of the grout and/or tile roof material. Further, he denied that the roof damage was caused from a hurricane. The homeowners’ expert testified that he had relied on data from the National Weather Service but did not know the collection method for same. He further testified to the location of the opening on the roof based on the photographs and two physical inspections, attributing the visible damage of a wind-created opening in the roof membrane from hurricane winds.In reversing the trial court’s judgment, the Fourt District Court relied, in part, on Hancock v. Schorr, 941 So. 2d 409, 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), which found that it remained the jury's province-viewing all evidence and inferences in the homeowners’ favor-to weigh conflicting testimony. Further, courts may grant motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict only when there is no evidence or inferences which may support the opposing party's position. The District Court concluded the verdict was supported by competent, substantial evidence and that the trial court improperly reweighed conflicting testimony and substituted its own evaluation of the significance of photographic evidence for that of the jury. Because the homeowners presented competent, substantial evidence through expert testimony, from which a reasonable jury could find that hurricane winds created a peril-created opening in the roof, the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict. 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 Announces 2026 Shareholder Class and Special Counsel Promotions
December 15, 2025
98 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2026 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America
August 20, 2025
