Category: Firm News

Salmon, Salmon, Labbe & Dehne is proud to announce that it has received Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) certification from the National Minority Supplier Development Council (NMSDC).

The NMSDC is the longest-operating business growth engine for the broadest group of systematically excluded communities of color (Asian-Indian, Asian-Pacific, Black, Hispanic, and Native American). This certification reflects Salmon, Salmon, Labbe & Dehne’s ongoing commitment to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the legal profession and the communities we serve.

We are honored to receive this recognition and thank the NMSDC for its continued leadership in promoting supplier diversity and economic inclusion.

Learn more about the NMSDC and its mission here.

Thursday, December 11, 2025 12:00 – 1:00 PM
Webinar Link to be sent before the webinar.
Hosted by D. Brian Moore II, CPCUand Nestor A. Marante , Esq.

1 hour of Florida CE Credit

After an unsuccessful attempt to prove to a jury that Plaintiff was entitled to Overhead and Profit during trial, Plaintiff sought a directed verdict on the issue of whether she was entitled to Overhead and Profit as a matter of law. In Brown v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. (“Universal”) issued a payment to Ms. Brown pre-suit at actual cash value. Universal’s payment did not include any amount for Overhead and Profit. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming Universal breached the policy of insurance and owed her additional money, including funds for Overhead and Profit.

The matter proceeded to a jury trial. During the trial, Plaintiff moved for a directed verdict on the issue of Overhead and Profit. After hearing argument on the motion, the trial court reserved ruling and allowed the parties to present the issue to the jury. The jury ultimately did not find that Universal breached the policy and therefore awarded Plaintiff $0.00. After trial, Plaintiff renewed her motion for directed verdict and also moved for a new trial. She argued that the trial court erred by not granting her motion for directed verdict as it related to Overhead and Profit.

Kimberly A. Salmon, Esq. wrote the response to Plaintiff’s renewed motion. Mrs. Salmon argued that Plaintiff was only entitled to the actual cash value of the loss, which does not include Overhead and Profit. Because the policy provided for replacement cost coverage (which includes Overhead and Profit) only when necessary repairs are made and expenses are incurred, Mrs. Salmon contended that Plaintiff was not entitled to Overhead and Profit since no repairs had been made and no related expenses were incurred.

The matter proceeded to a hearing on August 14, 2025. Joseph A. Matera, Esq. appeared on behalf of Universal. The judge heard arguments from both parties. Mr. Matera argued that the Trinidad decision—heavily relied on by Plaintiff—was superseded by statute. In Trinidad, the Supreme Court of Florida held that insureds were entitled to Overhead and Profit where they were reasonably likely to need a general contractor for the repairs. However, Mr. Matera noted that Trinidad was based on both a statute and a policy that required the insurer to pay replacement cost value regardless of whether repairs had been completed. In contrast, the statute and policy at issue in Brown only provided for replacement cost payments after repairs were completed and expenses were incurred, as also noted in Mrs. Salmon’s response.

After Mrs. Salmon and Mr. Matera submitted a supplemental brief and both parties filed proposed orders, the trial court issued its ruling. On August 22, 2025, the court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Directed Verdict in Accordance with Prior Motion for Directed Verdict and Motion for New Trial.

Congratulations to Universal!

Despite choosing to take a “dangerous risk” (as True Builders’ counsel put it) in proceeding with litigation in circuit court due to a jurisdictional question, True Builders requested the Supreme Court of Florida (“Supreme Court”) to invoke discretionary review of an appellate court decision that True Builders claimed conflicted with Supreme Court precedent and opinions of other Florida District Courts of Appeal.

In True Builders a/a/o David Joiner, et. al. v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, True Builders initially filed litigation in circuit court. However, as the case progressed, it became apparent that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to preside over the matter, as the amount in controversy did not meet the jurisdictional threshold of the circuit court. Despite this, True Builders continued to litigate the matter in circuit court. Eventually, the case in circuit court was dismissed and re-filed in county court, where a negotiated settlement was reached.

Despite having dismissed the circuit court litigation, True Builders sought its attorneys’ fees and costs for litigating the matter in both circuit court and county court. The county court judge granted True Builders attorneys’ fees and costs for both the circuit court case and the county court case. Our client, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”), appealed. As it related to the matter of entitlement to fees and costs for litigating the case in circuit court, Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal (“Sixth District”) agreed with Universal and found that True Builders was not entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs.

True Builders then filed a notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. True Builders argued to the Supreme Court that it should invoke jurisdictional review because it claimed the Sixth District’s opinion conflicted with Supreme Court precedent as well as with opinions of other Florida District Courts of Appeal. Joseph A. Matera, Esq. wrote the response brief for our firm on behalf of Universal, where he argued that the opinion of the Sixth District did not conflict with any Supreme Court precedent, nor did it conflict with any opinions of the other Florida District Courts of Appeal.

Specifically, Mr. Matera stressed to the Supreme Court that the Court’s Wollard decision did not relate to litigation that was dismissed and then re-filed, as Wollard involved a matter that was simply settled litigation that had not been previously dismissed. Mr. Matera also emphasized that the other District Court of Appeal decisions cited in True Builders’ brief related to pre-litigation attorneys’ fees and costs, as opposed to post-litigation fees and costs claimed in dismissed litigation.

The Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction, and therefore the petition to review was denied. Justices Canady, Couriel, Grosshans, Francis, and Sasso all concurred with the decision. The Supreme Court also noted in its order that it would not entertain any motion for rehearing.

Congratulations to Universal!

In Boyd v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) was faced with a challenge to a trial court’s evidentiary ruling. Boyd contended that the trial court improperly allowed Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Universal”) Corporate Representative to testify about matters outside of his personal knowledge.

Throughout the trial, Universal’s Corporate Representative testified about numerous topics, including what was reported when the claim was filed with Universal, what documents Universal sent to the insured, what documents were received by Universal, and Universal’s overall coverage determination. Prior to offering this testimony, the Corporate Representative stated that he was the manager of all Corporate Representatives at Universal and that he was familiar with how Universal maintains its records, collects and stores field adjuster estimates, and that he had reviewed the claim file and the applicable insurance policy. He also testified that he served as the records custodian for the claim file.

In determining that the Corporate Representative had sufficient personal knowledge to testify about the claim file documents, the Fourth DCA emphasized that the personal knowledge requirement does not necessitate the Corporate Representative’s direct involvement in all matters at issue. Based on his testimony, the court found that Universal had adequately established that the Corporate Representative “obtained personal knowledge through his job duties with the insurer, as well as his review of the insurer’s documents and records.” Although a mere cursory review of the claim file is not sufficient to establish personal knowledge, such knowledge can be demonstrated through testimony detailing the representative’s “employment, training, or experience that might provide him with personal knowledge of the insurer’s recordkeeping practices.” See Savoy v. Am Platinum Prop. & Cas. Ins., 363 So. 3d 1102, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).

There has been a growing trend of challenges to the personal knowledge requirement, both in the context of affidavits submitted for motions for summary judgment and in Corporate Representative trial testimony. Boyd makes clear that personal knowledge does not mean personal involvement. As long as the insurer can establish a foundation for the Corporate Representative’s personal knowledge—whether through well-drafted affidavits or appropriately framed questions at trial—a Corporate Representative who was not personally involved in the handling of the claim should still be permitted to testify about matters related to the claim, including the contents of the claim file.

Joseph A. Matera, Esq.

Introduces Robert Dehne as New Shareholder

Salmon, Salmon, Labbe & Dehne welcomes Robert “Bobby” Dehne as a shareholder!  Please join all of the firm’s family and friends in congratulating Bobby on this accomplishment.  Bobby may be reached at rdehne@salmon-salmon.com.

Bobby Dehne joined the firm in 2012.  He practiced out of the Maitland office, where he became the managing partner of the Central Florida region.  Bobby has more recently been “the face” of the firm at industry events in Florida, regularly speaking at insurance seminars and conventions.  He routinely visits with insurers, old and new,  to discuss legislation and trends in the claims and litigation arena.  Bobby’s relationships are widespread touching not just our clients, but the many vendors our clients rely on for claims handling.  

Bobby has shaped many of the professionals in our firm through his steady leadership and mentorship.  He has guided his team through different litigation cycle, providing countless internal seminars to our paralegals and attorneys.  

Two weeks ago, we teased to be on the lookout for additional announcements on the firm’s growth, name change, and new logo very soon!  Even in the face of the Cracker Barrel backlash, we introduce:

In Brown v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Universal obtained a defense verdict at trial on another Mark Nation cast iron pipe case. 

During the claim, Universal issued payment to Ms. Brown on an actual cash value basis.  Universal’s payment did not include any amount for overhead and profit.  Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming Universal breached the policy of insurance and owed her additional money, including money for overhead and profit.

During the trial, plaintiff moved for directed verdict on the issue of overhead and profit.  After hearing argument on the motion for directed verdict, the trial court reserved ruling on the motion, and allowed the parties to argue the issue of overhead and profit to the jury.  The jury did not find Universal breached the policy and awarded plaintiff nothing.  

After the trial, plaintiff moved for directed verdict in accordance with its prior motion for directed verdict and for a new trial.  Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred when it did not grant directed verdict to plaintiff as it related to overhead and profit. 

Kimberly A. Salmon prepared the response to plaintiff’s renewed motion.  Mrs. Salmon argued that plaintiff is only entitled to the actual cash value of the loss, which does not include overhead and profit.  Since the policy provides for replacement cost only when necessary repairs are made and expenses are incurred, plaintiff was not entitled to overhead and profit since she did not make any repairs.

Joseph A. Matera appeared for the hearing on behalf of Universal and argued that the Trinidad decision, which was heavily relied on by the plaintiff, was superseded by statute.  In Trinidad, the Supreme Court of Florida held that insureds were entitled to overhead and profit where the insured is reasonably likely to need a general contractor for the repairs.  However, the Trinidad decision was based both on a statute and policy of insurance that required the insurer to pay replacement cost value regardless as to whether repairs had been completed.  The statute and policy at issue in the Brown case provided payments for replacement cost only when the repairs were made and expenses were incurred.  

After Mrs. Salmon and Mr. Matera submitted a supplemental brief on the matter and the parties submitted proposed orders to the Court, on August 29, 2025, the trial court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Directed Verdict in Accordance with Prior Motion for Directed Verdict and Motion for New Trial.  The Order, which can be accessed here, reflects that overhead and profit is not a direct physical loss to property but rather a replacement cost. 

Congratulations to Universal and we hope everyone else can avoid paying the twenty percent that was never incurred!

Introduces Andrew Labbe as New Shareholder

Salmon & Salmon welcomes Andrew Labbe as a shareholder in the firm now known as Salmon, Salmon, & Labbe!  Please join the Salmon, Salmon & Labbe family in congratulating Andrew on this achievement.  Andrew may be reached at alabbe@salmon-salmon.com.

Andrew Labbe is well known to many of you through his decade plus representation of Florida insurers at the trial and appellate levels.  Andrew spent twelve years with the firm, starting out as an associate in the Tampa office.  Andrew started out with a third-party practice before entering the first party defense arena.  Andrew quickly developed into a partner, a Florida board certified appellate lawyer, and a thought leader in the industry.  Andrew opened our firm’s Boston, Massachusetts office in 2016, where he handles first and third-party insurance defense as well as spearheads the firm’s subrogation and recovery in the northeast.  Andrew is licensed to practice law in Florida, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and soon Connecticut.  Meanwhile, Andrew continues to maintain a heavy trial and appellate practice in Florida, where he is frequently first chair for trials or monitors trials on behalf of insurers to guide their trial counsel through potential appellate issues.

Andrew is an instrumental component to the growth of the firm as we continue to expand our footprint outside of Florida and strengthening our presence in Florida.  

Please look for additional announcements on the firm’s growth, name change, and new logo very soon!