.

Michael A. Packer

Office Managing Attorney

Co-Chair, Insurance Services Practice Group

Portrait of Michael A. Packer

Michael is the firm's supervising attorney for the Insurance Services Practice Group in the state of Florida and a member of the firm's Board of Directors. The group assists insurers in all aspects of a coverage dispute, including responses to civil remedy notices of insurer violations, pre-suit investigations and coverage evaluations, declaratory judgment and bad faith litigation. In particular, Michael defends property insurers throughout Florida in first party coverage matters, where he responds to claims for sinkhole, windstorm, fire, mold, theft, and water losses. Michael's group also conducts examinations under oath and SIU investigations.

In both the state and federal courts, Michael has participated in a number of bench and jury trials through verdict, all of which resulted in either a defense verdict or a verdict which was less than the amount demanded.

In addition, Michael is often asked to serve as coverage and bad faith counsel in third party actions, including monitoring the defense of litigation, as well as trial. As part of this role, Michael is often asked to draft reservation of rights, declinations and prosecute declaratory relief actions.

Michael has substantial experience in alternative dispute resolution, having represented clients in thousands of mediations, neutral evaluations and arbitration proceedings. Michael routinely advises clients on the evaluation and resolution of multi-claimant matters, often times where the injuries and damages exceed the available policy limits.

Over the past ten years, Michael and his group have defended in excess of three hundred sinkhole lawsuits, as well as hundreds of other first party lawsuits. The group has defended a number of cases through trial and appeal, including four sinkhole trials during recent years. In addition, the group represents more than ten statewide insurance carriers in first party property damage lawsuits, including many of the largest insurance carriers in Florida.

Michael routinely speaks at regional and nationwide industry conferences, specifically addressing coverage issues under first party property and third party liability policies. He has also presented a number of seminars on auto negligence, uninsured motorist and bad faith claims. Michael frequently travels around the country to provide in-house claims seminars with claims professionals. In addition, he has lectured on defending first party property damage claims including sinkhole and mold claims, which included review and analysis of claims handling procedures, as well as recommendations for the same. Michael has also written numerous articles for industry publications addressing Florida-specific claim handling issues and insurance companies’ rights and obligations in defending first and third party coverage actions.

In 1994 Michael earned his Bachelor of Arts from the State University of New York at Albany. Subsequently, Michael obtained his juris doctor in 1997 from the University of Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, Florida, where he graduated cum laude.

Michael is married to Nicole Packer and they live with their three children in Weston, Florida.

    • University of Miami School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 1997)
    • State University of New York at Albany (B.A., 1994)
    • Florida, 1997
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida, 1997
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida, 2006
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida, 2007
    • Florida Trend Legal Elite, NOTABLE Managing Partner (2025)
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • South Florida Legal Guide - Top Lawyers in Insurance Litigation Defense (2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021)
    • South Florida Legal Guide – Top Lawyers in Insurance Litigation (2014)
    • South Florida Legal Guide - Top Lawyers (2013 )
    • Florida Trend's Legal Elite - Top Up and Comer (2012)
    • American Bar Association
    • Defense Research Institute, 2013
    • Florida WIND, 2012, 2013
    • The Florida Bar
    • Examinations Under Oath - What Claims Professionals Need to Know to Conduct an Effective EUO, ALM/PropertyCasualty360 Complex Claims Conference, February 26, 2024
    • Investigating a Claim Under a Reservation of Rights - Strategies for Managing Claims that May Not be Covered, Florida Defense Lawyers Association’s Florida Liability Claims Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL, June 16, 2022 
    • What You Need to Know After you Go – Parts 1 and 2, CLM Claims College School of Property - Level 1 – Coverage, Virtual, 2021
    • Current Issues and Case Law Affecting the Property Claims Arena, CLM Claims College School of Property - Level 3, Virtual, 2021
    • Covid 19: To Be Property Damage or Not to Be Property Damage, CLM, January 2021 
    • 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
    • Protecting Your Clients' Interest During Settlement, WIND Conference, 2013
    • American Conference Institute Bad Faith Litigation Conference (co-chairperson and lecturer) 2012
    • American Conference Institute Bad Faith Litigation Conference (lecturer) 2011

Results

Thought Leadership

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Late Notice - Policy Language Controls Burden to Prove Prejudice

October 5, 2026

Despite the fact the insured failed to provide notice to its insurance company until more than 1,000 days after it sustained damage as a result of Hurricane Irma, the Second District Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of the insurer. While the appellate court agreed with the trial court that the insured clearly failed to provide timely notice of the loss, summary judgment was nonetheless reversed as the trial court improperly presumed prejudice to the insurance company without examining the relevant policy language. Further, the trial court failed to properly consider evidence submitted by the plaintiff to overcome the presumed prejudice. The appellate court analyzed the duties after loss, which stated: The relevant provision of Wild Oak Bay's insurance policy, Duties in the Event of Loss or Damage, provides that pursuant to section 627.70132, Florida Statutes (2016), "loss or damage caused by the peril of windstorm or hurricane is not covered unless notice of the claim . . . is provided to [American Coastal] in accordance with the policy conditions, within three (3) years from the date the hurricane made landfall or the windstorm caused damage" and that "[i]n the case of a loss to covered property, [American Coastal] ha[s] no duty to provide coverage under this Policy if the failure to comply with the following [listed] duties is prejudicial to [American Coastal]." (Emphasis added.) The listed duties include that Wild Oak Bay "give [American Coastal] prompt notice of the loss or damage," including a description of the property, and that Wild Oak Bay, "[a]s soon as possible, give [American Coastal] a description of how, when and where the loss or damage occurred." Also included in the list of duties is cooperation in the investigation of the claim. Based on the above language which includes, “if the failure to comply with following listed duties is prejudicial to American Coastal,” the Second DCA agreed with the Fourth DCA’s decision in Perez v. Citizens Property Insurance Company, 345 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), which found that identical policy language placed the burden on the insurer to prove prejudice. Id. at 896. This analysis is contrary to the Third DCA analysis of the same policy language, where it found “there is no " `policy language exception' to the presumption of prejudice that arises when an insured fails to promptly notify the insurer of a claim." Arce v. Citizens Property Insurance Co., 388 So. 3d 205, 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). The Second DCA relied on the Fourth DCA’s reasoning and concluded that based on the policy language, the burden was on the insurance company to prove it had been prejudiced by the late notice. The Second DCA further certified conflict with the Third DCA’s opinion in Arce. As such, the question of who’s burden it is to prove/disprove prejudice may ultimately be decided by the Florida Supreme Court.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse… Profile of the Insurance Services – Coverage and Bad Faith Litigation Practice Group

June 30, 2026

The Insurance Services – Coverage and Bad Faith Litigation Practice Group delivers comprehensive, end-to-end litigation and advisory services to national and global insurance carriers. While the group is deeply experienced in coverage and bad faith litigation, its capabilities extend well beyond traditional legal defense. Through its broader Insurance Services practice, the firm has built a dynamic suite of innovative, client-focused solutions tailored to the evolving needs of insurers operating in complex and high-risk environments. With attorneys present in jurisdictions spanning from Florida to New York, the practice group approaches each matter with a strategic, solutions-oriented mindset. Its attorneys focus not only on resolving disputes, but on proactively managing risk by developing creative strategies to control exposure, avoid litigation where possible, and transfer risk effectively. In doing so, the group remains mindful of the broader business implications for its clients, including the protection of brand integrity and competitive positioning within the insurance industry. The group’s experience encompasses the full spectrum of insurance products, including commercial, personal property, and casualty policies, professional liability coverage, health and life insurance, and workers’ compensation policies. This breadth allows the team to provide nuanced, industry-specific counsel across a wide array of coverage issues and claims scenarios. Leadership within the practice group reflects both geographic reach and subject-matter depth. Todd Leon, who has offices in Philadelphia and Mount Laurel, serves as the Northeast head, with Allison Krupp of the Camp Hill office serving as vice-chair. Michael Packer, based in Fort Lauderdale, oversees operations in the Southeast, with Danielle Robinson, also of Fort Lauderdale, as the vice chair. Together, they guide a team of approximately 20 attorneys who provide consistent, coordinated legal services across jurisdictions. The Southeast team, in particular, brings a sophisticated understanding of the unique legal and regulatory challenges associated with Florida’s insurance landscape. Across all offices, attorneys are supported by a strong network of associates, paralegals, and professional staff, enabling the group to efficiently manage even the most complex coverage disputes, including first-party property and automobile litigation. The group also benefits from the leadership and insights of Jim Cole, the former group chair, who is now the Director of the firm’s Professional Liability Department. The practice group has a proven track record of successfully representing insurers in both state and federal courts in first-party and bad faith litigation and in providing opinions on coverage issues in jurisdictions around the country. Its attorneys are well-versed in the intricacies of institutional discovery, including corporate designee, apex, and employee depositions, as well as the litigation tactics often employed by plaintiffs to drive settlement pressure. By offering strategic guidance at every stage – both pre-litigation and during active disputes – the group helps clients evaluate coverage positions, mitigate risk, and make informed decisions about resolution or trial. When litigation is unavoidable, the firm’s seasoned trial attorneys are prepared to vigorously defend even the most complex and high-exposure matters. Beyond litigation, the group offers a wide array of services designed to support insurers’ operational and strategic objectives. These include coverage consultation, coordinating counsel services, catastrophe (CAT) operation coverage strategies, and specialized support for first-party property and automobile claims. The team also provides SIU and fraud-related investigation and litigation services, indemnification and risk transfer strategies, and comprehensive bad faith evaluation and defense. Additional offerings include policy language review, representation before administrative and insurance departments, claims practices consultation, and institutional discovery support. The group also works closely with clients to develop best practices, internal guidelines, and customized training and educational programs tailored to the full range of insurance products. With 19 offices across Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Florida, Ohio, and Connecticut, and an active presence in neighboring jurisdictions such as Maryland, West Virginia, and Kentucky, the Insurance Services Practice Group is positioned to provide seamless, regional, and national support. Its integrated approach ensures that clients receive not only skilled legal representation but also practical, forward-looking guidance designed to meet the demands of today’s insurance landscape.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.