Areas Of Practice

• Appeals
• General Civil Litigation & Insurance Defense

Kevin D. Franz is a partner and Practice Group Leader of the firm’s Appellate Practice division. Mr. Franz has been Board Certified in Appellate Practice by The Florida Bar since 2019. He has received the Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent® Peer Review Rating and has 20 years of experience handling all types of civil appellate proceedings. Mr. Franz has handled appeals and petitions in the Supreme Court of Florida, the six District Courts of Appeal for the State of Florida, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Mr. Franz received his B.S. from the University of Maryland at College Park in 2001, and his J.D. from the University of Miami School of Law in 2005. He then clerked for the Honorable E. Allen Shepherd in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland before beginning his career in insurance defense with an emphasis on litigation support and appellate practice.

Mr. Franz is admitted to practice before the Florida Supreme Court, the six Florida District Courts of Appeal, the three United States District Courts in Florida, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  He also served on the Professional Ethics Committee of the Florida Bar from 2018-2024.

Admissions

• Florida, 2005
• Maryland, 2005
• United States District Court
  • Southern District of Florida, 2007
  • Northern District of Florida, 2014
  • Middle District of Florida, 2012
• United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, 2013

Awards & Recognition

• AV® Preeminent Peer Review Rated by Martindale-Hubbell
• Board Certified in Appellate Practice by The Florida Bar, 2019
• Certificate of Meritorious Service – Professional Ethics Committee of the Florida Bar – 2018-2024

Memberships

• The Florida Bar
  • Appellate Practice Section, 2010-present
  • Lawyers Advising Lawyers, Advisor, 2016-present
  • Professional Ethics Committee, 2018-2024

Representative Cases

• Mr. Franz successfully obtained a decision on an issue of first impression from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  That Court held that a Transportation Network Company (“TNC”) Commercial Auto Policy issued by an insurer to a rideshare platform did not owe UM coverage to the rideshare platform driver injured while engaged in a prearranged ride.  The District Court Judge granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer and the rideshare platform.  It found that the TNC statute did not require the insurer to provide the rideshare platform UM coverage under 672.727 because subsection (1) only requires UM coverage for policies covering a “specifically insured or identified motor vehicle.”  Because the insurance policy did not specifically identify the driver’s vehicle, there was no requirement to provide UM coverage.  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed based on the plain language of the TNC and UM statutes.  It also recognized that the rideshare platform expressly rejected UM coverage in writing, which is permitted under Florida’s UM statute.
• Mr. Franz successfully obtained a decision from the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversing a $1.6 million verdict in an auto accident case.   At the close of evidence, Plaintiff moved for a partial directed verdict arguing the evidence was undisputed that she sustained at least “some” injury from the subject 2019 accident.  The trial court granted the motion, removed causation from the verdict form, and left it to the jury to determine damages.  The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial.  It held that the trial court erred in directed a partial verdict in favor of the Plaintiff on causation because the evidence in the light most favorable to the Defendant would allow the jury to find that all of Plaintiff’s claimed damages were caused by something other than the 2019 accident.
• Successfully defended against an appeal brought by a plaintiff in a personal injury action who was found comparatively negligent for her injuries.  The Third District Court of appeal affirmed the decision denying Plaintiff’s argument that all fault should be apportioned on the Defendant driver.  We argued in the trial and appellate courts that that Plaintiff owed a duty of care to look before she stepped into a driveway, and the jury’s verdict was supported by Plaintiff’s negligent actions.
• Successfully defended against an appeal brought by a plaintiff in a wrongful death action where the trial court ruled that the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident was limited to $100,000 in liability under Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine’s statutory cap on damages.
• Successfully obtained an opinion from the Fifth District Court of Appeal in 2019 reversing entry of a new trial and remanding for the trial court to reinstate the jury’s defense verdict in favor of a homeowner.  The case involved an alleged improper closing argument.  Kevin Franz and Kansas Gooden argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the mistrial and ordering a new trial.
• Boyd & Jenerette obtained a final judgment on behalf of a major insurance carrier in a case involving exclusion of coverage under a “racing exclusion” for property damage caused while driving on a race track.  Attorney Jane Anderson successfully obtained Final Judgment in the trial court, and attorneys Kansas Gooden and Kevin Franz successfully convinced the Second District Court of Appeal to affirm the judgment.
• Mr. Franz helped secure a reversal of a trial court’s non-final order compelling appraisal in a first-party property damage action.  The Third District Court of Appeal agreed that the insureds failed to fully comply with their post-loss obligations under a homeowner’s insurance policy; and as a result, they were not entitled to appraisal under the policy.
• Following a trial in a property damage case arising out of a loss allegedly caused by Hurricane Wilma, Mr. Franz handled an appeal on behalf of a major insurance carrier in the Fourth District Court of Appeal.  The carrier argued that evidence about the homeowner’s medical issues was irrelevant and highly prejudicial to in the simple property damage case.  The appellate court reversed the verdict and remanded for a new trial agreeing that the insured’s health issue was irrelevant and prejudicially impacted the verdict.
• Mr. Franz successfully convinced the Third District Court of Appeal to affirm entry of a summary judgment in favor of a rental apartment complex in a personal injury case brought by a resident who sought damages for an unsuccessful suicide attempt.  The appellate court held that the apartment complex had no custody or control over the tenant, and accordingly, owed no duty of care to prevent the tenant from attempting suicide by jumping out of a fifth floor window.
• Mr. Franz handled an appeal of a premises liability action brought by an injured independent contractor of a tree stump removal company against a homeowner.  The plaintiff suffered severe injuries while removing a tree stump on the homeowner’s property and sued her for damages.  The homeowner obtained a summary judgment, which was affirmed on appeal because the homeowner held no control over the work performed by the tree stump company or its independent contractors.  Accordingly, the homeowner owed no duty as a matter of law.
• Mr. Franz appealed a trial court order denying a motion to quash service of process for noncompliance with Florida statutory law.  The Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed that the plaintiff failed to strictly comply with the requirements under section 48.161, Florida Statutes to perfect substitute service of process and reversed and remanded the case.