Shawn Mangano (Of Counsel-Las Vegas, NV), Jura Zibas (Partner-New York, NY and Sarasota, FL) and Sean Rolland (Of Counsel-Orlando, FL) successfully defended a hybrid managed services provider in litigation before the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Plaintiffs’ claims involved the unauthorized access and alleged dissemination of personally identifiable information (“PII”) related to potentially over 600,000 potential data breach claimants that received services for a health provider with which Wilson Elser’s client was providing data storage and security services. The data breach at issue involved sophisticated Russian cybercriminals who allegedly gained access to another party’s protected data through cyber-spoofing, resulting in access to the provider’s information containing Plaintiffs’ PII. Plaintiffs filed a complaint for damages seeking recovery for negligence/negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, invasion of privacy or intrusion upon seclusion, and unjust enrichment.

On August 18, 2026, our client received a report and recommendation recommending its motion to dismiss be granted on several key damage recovery issues that have not otherwise been confirmed in data breach actions filed in the jurisdiction.

These recommendations include the requirement that, for a negligence per se claim, a plaintiff must allege that his or her PPI was subject to an increased risk of fraud, identity theft, or nefarious misuse. Likewise, for a plaintiff seeking to recover for “lost time” under a negligence/negligence per se claim, recovery must be tied to out-of-pocket expenses for said lost time. Finally, a plaintiff’s claims of increased anxiety and emotional distress must assert the existence of a physical injury or illness to warrant recovery of damages for the unauthorized disclosure of his or her PII.

Regarding breach of third-party beneficiary contract, the Court concluded that mere allegations that “Defendant entered into contracts to provide IT services” were insufficient to establish data protection obligations on our client.

Finally, the Court determined that to recover for invasion of privacy/inclusion upon seclusion for the data breach, a Plaintiff must be under “highly offensive” circumstances. In this case, those “highly offensive” circumstances were determined to be possession of PII by a notorious cybercriminal gang, of which at least one Plaintiff had failed to assert.

Overall, this result serves to delineate the allegations necessary for Plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss in cyber breach cases in the District of Nevada, despite multiple other decisions that essentially rubberstamped allegations. 

Nicholas Freeman (Partner-Orlando, FL) and Alexis Costello (Associate-Orlando, FL) successfully defended a Florida property owner against premises liability allegations arising from a trip-and-fall on a city-owned crosswalk. Plaintiff alleged that our client was responsible for the accident because its building had a sign that directs pedestrians through its building and toward a popular shopping and dining district where the crosswalk is located.

Nick and Alexis moved to dismiss the case by arguing that signage directing pedestrians to a public walkway does not transform a property owner into the guarantor of safety for incidents that occur a city-maintained public right-of-way. The court agreed and dismissed the claim with prejudice as a matter of law.

Krystal Yearwood Moise (Partner-Orlando) and Ashley Wright (Associate-Orlando) secured a complete summary judgment in Sarasota County Court, Sarasota, FL, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s bowling company clients in a premises liability action arising from a reported trip and fall at a Sarasota County bowling center. The plaintiff claimed a dangerous condition at the facility’s entrance caused the fall and resulting injuries, which required surgical intervention. Following discovery, Krystal and Ashley filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the record was devoid of any evidence demonstrating the existence of a hazardous condition at the time of the incident or establishing that our clients had actual or constructive notice of any such alleged condition. The court granted the Wilson Elser team’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, finding no evidence of a hazardous condition at the time of the fall, and directed entry of final judgment in the clients’ favor, with taxable costs to be determined. 

Sean McDonough (Partner-Tampa) and Eric Neiberger (Of Counsel-Orlando) secured a favorable verdict in Duval County Circuit Court in Jacksonville, Florida, convincing the jury that the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent injury and was not entitled to damages for pain and suffering following a minimal-impact motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff alleged that the accident caused herniated discs in his neck and back, leading to injections, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and a $3.2 million life-care plan. Wilson Elser conceded negligence and past medical expenses on behalf of the client, and the jury awarded approximately $113,000 in past and future medical expenses – well below the client's proposal for settlement served more than two months before trial.  As a result, Wilson Elser is moving for fees and costs and will be seeking an award of fees and costs that exceeds plaintiff’s verdict.

Noelle Sheehan (Partner-Orlando) and Molly J. Durso (Associate-Orlando) obtained summary judgment in the Second Judicial Circuit Court, Leon County, Florida, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a franchisee of a national hotel chain. In this protracted premises liability case, the plaintiff alleged that the steps at the hotel’s main entrance constituted an unreasonably dangerous condition, causing her to trip and fall. Using the plaintiff’s own deposition testimony, Noelle and Molly argued that the steps were not a dangerous condition but rather were an open and obvious feature of which the plaintiff was well aware, and that the subject incident was caused by the plaintiff’s negligence rather than that of our client. The court was persuaded by Wilson Elser’s arguments and granted the motion for summary judgment, ending more than 2.5 years of contentious litigation.

​Jacqueline Bertelsen (Of Counsel-Orlando)​ Noelle Sheehan (Partner-Orlando) and Melissa Krepps (Of Counsel-Orlando) successfully had their summary judgment victory upheld in the Florida Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal in a nursing home negligence and wrongful death lawsuit. Noelle and Melissa relied on provisions of an asset purchase agreement to prevail on their motion for summary judgment. Following the entry of summary judgment, the plaintiff moved for rehearing. Noelle and Melissa brought in Jacqueline Bertelsen from the firm’s Appellate Practice group to assist. Jacqueline opposed the motion for rehearing as untimely, and the trial court agreed. The plaintiff then appealed to Florida’s Sixth District. The Sixth District issued an Order to the plaintiff to show cause as to why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. The plaintiff argued that the untimely appeal was due to counsel’s excusable neglect. Jacqueline worked with Noelle to prepare a comprehensive response brief that demonstrated the legal insufficiency of the plaintiff’s brief and revealed factual inconsistencies between the plaintiff’s argument and the record. As a result, the Sixth District dismissed the appeal and upheld summary judgment for our client. This victory demonstrates how Wilson Elser’s attorneys work seamlessly across practice areas to deliver successful client outcomes. ​

Julia Young (Partner-Orlando, FL) and Sara McLaughlin (Associate-Orlando, FL) secured a summary judgment for our insurance company client in a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The court entered an Order striking both of the plaintiff’s experts, as the experts were neither timely nor properly disclosed, and then granted Julia and Sara’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that the plaintiff lacked any admissible evidence that her property damage arose from a covered cause of loss during the subject policy period. In view of the judgment in favor of our client, as well as a prior Offer of Judgment/Proposal for Settlement served upon the plaintiff by our client and rejected by the plaintiff, the judge entered his Order awarding to our client attorneys’ fees in the amount of $36,324.50 and costs in the amount of $2,693.00. It is noted that, upon notice to the plaintiff’s counsel that we would be moving to strike the plaintiff’s experts and for summary judgment, the plaintiff moved the court for leave to voluntarily dismiss her Complaint, without prejudice to refile, and her request was denied by the court.

Julia Young (Partner-Orlando, FL) defended an insurance company client in a case involving a named-perils policy, which, under Florida substantive law, means the plaintiff’s initial burden in the case is to prove that damage was sustained to her property as the result of windstorm (a named peril under the policy). The property insurer investigated the claim and determined that repair of covered damages did not exceed the applicable policy deductible. The insured then filed suit for breach of contract, and sought damages in excess of $75,000. The matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The plaintiff’s counsel failed to disclose any expert by the deadline, and one extension of time was provided to the plaintiff, who again failed to meet the deadline. Julia did not consent to a second extension of time, and contested the plaintiff’s motion seeking one; the court ultimately denied the plaintiff’s motion. Julia argued that, lacking expert evidence, the plaintiff could not meet her initial burden, and, therefore, the client was entitled to summary judgment. Judge Badalamenti handed down his order granting our motion, noting that, without expert evidence, the plaintiff could not demonstrate the necessary element of causation, and could not rebut testimony of our experts regarding whether damage arose due to windstorm or to age-related deterioration. Judge Badalamenti concluded his Order with: “This is a prime example of a complex issue outside the scope of a layperson’s knowledge that requires testimony from an expert witness.”

James Kloss (Partner-Orlando, FL), Rachel Walters (Of Counsel-Miami, FL) and Claire Turtle (Associate-Orlando, FL) were brought into a slip/trip-and-fall case on the eve of trial to represent the janitorial services company at a mall. While the court recognized it was unfair to have a trial on such short notice, the case was on the Florida Supreme Court’s list and, as such, the court did not have the freedom to continue the case. The team was unable to retain experts (but did share experts already retained by the co-defendant) or depose the plaintiff due to the limited time frame before trial. The plaintiff’s most recent demand to our client was $1.2 million. The plaintiff alleged he tripped and fell over an outlet in the carpet flooring of the mall premises. The plaintiff claimed our client owed a duty to notify the mall of a dangerous condition, and to reasonably maintain the area. The team filed a motion for summary judgment on lack of duty, arguing our client owed no duty based on its contract language and the scope of janitorial services. Per the limited contractual services, our client was under no duty to reasonably maintain the premises. The motion was heard less than a month before trial, and the judge granted the motion finding “based on the plain language of the contract, [the janitorial service] was under no duty to reasonably maintain the premises.” 

Julia Young (Partner-Orlando, FL) and Sara McLaughlin (Associate-Orlando, FL) secured dismissal of a case involving a dispute between a contractor, as assignee of the insured and our carrier client over payment for water mitigation services following a loss at the insured’s property. Julia and Sara moved to dismiss with prejudice, arguing the contractor lacked standing because its assignment of benefits (AOB) was invalid under Florida Statute §627.7152. Specifically, it was argued that the AOB failed to include the statutorily required written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate, and instead attached only a generic price list, and that noncompliance rendered the AOB void, eliminating any right to sue. Sara and Julia further asserted that the breach of contract claim failed for lack of a contractual relationship, and the quantum meruit claim was barred because any benefit from mitigation flowed to the homeowner. Lastly, the declaratory judgment count improperly sought an advisory opinion since the policy language is clear and no present controversy existed. The court agreed with Julia and Sara on all grounds and granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.

Nicholas D. Freeman (Partner-Orlando, FL), J. Peter Greco (Of Counsel-Orlando, FL), and Donna Krusbe (Of Counsel-West Palm Beach, FL) obtained a full dismissal with prejudice in a federal product liability case arising from a fatal vehicle crash. The firm represented a component parts manufacturer accused of designing and supplying a defective trailer axle alleged to have contributed to the incident. The plaintiff alleged that a defective trailer axle required the decedent to stop on the highway, and that resulted in the decedent being struck by another motorist.  Nick, Peter, and Donna successfully argued that there was an unrelated motor vehicle collision that was the true proximate cause of the collision with the decedent, and it was unforeseeable that an alleged axle failure could result in a death under those circumstances. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida agreed and dismissed all claims with prejudice. 

Noelle Sheehan (Partner-Orlando, FL) and Melissa Krepps (Of Counsel-Orlando, FL) secured summary judgment in a nursing home negligence lawsuit involving claims brought by the estate of a former patient. The plaintiff alleged negligence related to care provided at our client’s facility. However, through diligent investigation and presentation of undisputed material facts, Noelle and Melissa demonstrated that our client neither owned nor operated the facility during the patient’s residency and had no involvement in his care or treatment. The facility was acquired by our client after his discharge, and the asset purchase agreement expressly excluded any liabilities for prior residents’ claims. The Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida, agreed with our position, finding that the defendant owed no duty to the estate and could not be held liable for any alleged negligence. As a result, summary judgment was granted in favor of our client, bringing a successful resolution to a case that had been active for several years.