Danielle is a shareholder in the firm's Professional Liability Department and serves as Co-Chair of the Insurance Services Practice Group as well as Co-Chair of the First Party Property Practice Group. She focuses her practice on the defense of insurance carrier clients in matters involving coverage issues and alleged bad faith actions. Many of these coverage disputes are derived from claims involving windstorm, sinkhole, fire, mold, theft and water losses. Additionally, she represents automobile manufacturers in lemon law and warranty litigation. She defends these companies in breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and rescission lawsuits in Florida and United States federal courts from pre-suit through trial. Danielle has also handled several appeals for her clients involving issues in civil defense and litigation.
Danielle is a 2002 graduate of Florida State University and earned her J.D. from St. Thomas University School of Law in 2005. She is admitted to practice in Florida, as well as the United States District Court for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida.
Honors & Awards
•AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell
•South Florida Legal Guide, Up & Comer, Insurance Litigation Defense, 2019-2021
•Florida Super Lawyers Rising Star-Insurance Coverage and Civil Litigation Defense (2014-2015)
Classes/Seminars Taught
•Mediation and Pre-Suit Claims Handling - Best Practices, Client Seminar, August 2016
•Insurance Coverage and Bad-Faith Insurance Issues Under Florida Law, Marshall Dennehey Florida Claims Symposium - The Best Defense is a Good Offense, Orlando, FL, September 17, 2014
Published Works
•“Decision Requiring Strict Compliance with 627.7152 Provides Insurance Carriers with Another Tool to Combat Litigation of Assignment of Benefit Claims,” Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022
•'Enforceability of Proposals for Settlement in Actions Requesting Declaratory Relief,' Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 4, December 2016
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
Sixth DCA Rejects Prejudice Requirement for Excluding Late-Disclosed Expert Opinions, Certifies Conflict with Sixteen DCAs
June 11, 2026
Michael John Crecelius v. Mildred Rizzitano; (February 27, 2026)Crecelius involved an appeal by a defendant of the trial court’s exclusion of its late disclosed experts at trial. The defendant was involved in a vehicle accident, in which he made a left turn into an intersection and collided with the plaintiff, killing him. Plaintiff’s estate sued for negligence.The defendant disclosed two experts after the deadline imposed by the court. The disclosure described each expert’s anticipated scope of work, but did not contain their respective substantive opinions. Approximately three-weeks before trial, both expert reports were provided. The plaintiff moved to strike the experts’ testimony, arguing it was prejudiced because their expert had insufficient time to prepare rebuttal testimony before trial. The defendant argued the late disclosures were due to the experts’ not diligently providing reports and opinions to the defendant and there was no bad faith. The trial court granted the motion to strike. The plaintiff obtained a verdict in its favor, finding the defendant 100% at fault, to which the defendant appealed.The defendant argued on appeal that the experts’ opinions were received three weeks before trial, so any prejudice to the plaintiff was insufficient to warrant exclusion of his experts, and any prejudice could have been cured by a brief continuance. The defendant argued that he suffered extreme prejudice, as striking his witnesses left the plaintiff’s experts uncontradicted.In reaching its decision in Crecelius, the 6th DCA addressed the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981) at length, which addressed late disclosed experts. The Crecelius court found that its sister courts have consistently misapplied the Binger opinion, which “has severely ambered the ability of trial judges to effectively manage civil lawsuits and . . . prevent surprises at trial and to assist arriving at the truth.” The court wrote, “if the trial court finds that the undisclosed witness will not prejudice the other party after considering the factors listed in Binger, then the witness should be allowed to testify - as binding holding,” highlighting that its sister courts improperly expanded the Binger opinion to apply to undisclosed opinions of disclosed experts.The court criticized this approach, finding it meant that a trial judge could not enforce pretrial orders and exclude undisclosed testimony without first finding that the opposing party was prejudiced. The court noted that approach puts the burden on the opposing party to make an adequate showing of prejudice, potentially in the middle of trial and with no notice, which is inappropriate and incentivizes non-disclosure. The court explained that completing a last-minute deposition prior to trial to cure any prejudice also places a burden on the non-offending party, and even offering a continuance, puts that party in a position of having to choose between inadequate time to prepare or delay the trial, none of which is proper.The Crecelius court found that “Binger concerned undisclosed witness testimony that was improperly allowed and should have been excluded due to prejudice to other party. Binger did not concern undisclosed testimony that was improperly excluded or what the trial court should have considered before excluding undisclosed testimony.” Additionally, the Crecelius court found the statement in the Binger opinion “about what a trial court considers before excluding an undisclosed witness’s testimony was pure dictum” and that nothing in that statement led to the judgment, and thus, was not binding on it or on trial courts. The court noted that Binger expressly stated trial courts can issue pretrial orders that prohibit the introduction of undisclosed opinions, and those orders do not derogate from its decision. Trial courts are permitted to strictly enforce pretrial orders and to require them to make a finding of prejudice before doing so makes the ability to enforce court orders meaningless.The court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s order, striking the defendant’s witnesses, finding that Binger imposes no requirement that a trial court find that the opposing party would be prejudiced by the introduction of an undisclosed or late-disclosed expert opinion before excluding the opinion and certified conflict with 16 decisions out of the 1st DCA, 2nd DCA, 3rd DCA and 4th DCA.
Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation
Third DCA Finds Two-Year Delay in Reporting Property Damage Violates Prompt-Notice Obligation
March 1, 2026
Security First Insurance Company v. Moreno, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D59 (January 7, 2026)This case involves a claim for property damage allegedly caused by Hurricane Irma on September 10, 2017. However, the damage was reported to the carrier more than two years later on April 22, 2020. The carrier determined a portion of the claim was covered, but the covered damages were under the $6,000 windstorm deductible.The insureds filed suit a short time later, alleging the carrier breached the policy by failing to fully compensate them for the loss. At the trial, one of the insureds testified that he immediately noticed roof tiles on the ground, dislodged on the roof, and damage to a fence, however, no interior water leaks were reported. The insured testified two months later, in November 2017, claiming he noticed water leaks in the garage and family room, and put a tarp on the roof at that time. The insured testified the water stains inside the home grew and a few months after he initially noticed, he observed another water stain in the living room. The insured testified he did not report the claim for over two years because he “had personal family, personal issues going on.”The carrier moved for a directed verdict at the close of the insureds’ case, and again at the close of their case, requesting the court find there was a failure to provide prompt notice. The court denied the motions, ruling it was a jury question. The jury found the carrier did not prove the insureds failed to provide late notice and awarded $47,500.00 to the insureds. The carrier appealed the denials of the motions for directed verdict on the prompt notice issue.The Third DCA reversed the denial of the motions for directed verdict. The court noted the insured testified he observed water stains and put a tarp up more than two years before he reported the loss. Thus, the Third DCA found that because the insured acknowledged he knew he had property damage for over two years but did not report it due to personal and family issues, the notice was not prompt. The Third DCA remanded the case for a new trial solely on the issue of whether the carrier was prejudiced by the failure to provide prompt notice.
