Kimberly Kanoff Berman

Kimberly is a shareholder in the firm's Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group in the Professional Liability Department and is Board-certified in Appellate Practice by the Florida Bar. She has litigated numerous appeals in Florida state and federal appellate courts across a wide variety of subject matters in cases including but not limited to cases involving, medical malpractice, construction defect, condominium and homeowner association matters, insurance coverage, bad faith, maritime, aviation and premises liability. Kimberly handles the brief writing, motion practice and oral arguments. In addition to her extensive appellate practice, Kimberly provides litigation support in insurance coverage, construction defect, premises liability, casualty, professional malpractice and bad faith cases.

Kimberly has an AV Preeminent rating by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest rating for professional competence. From 2015-2020, Kimberly was recognized as a Super Lawyers Rising Star, a designation given each year to only 2.5 percent of lawyers in the state of Florida. She has also been recognized as a Top Lawyer for Appellate Law by the South Florida Legal Guide. Kimberly was selected to Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law.

Kimberly is actively involved in bar association and related legal societies. She is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Florida Supreme Court Historical Society and currently serves as Treasurer and Communications Chair. An active member of the Florida Bar, she is Vice Chair (Live Programs) of the Appellate Practice Section's CLE Committee and past chair of the Pro Bono and Programs Committees. She has been a member of the Broward County Bar Association, the Dade County Bar Association, the Defense Research Institute, the Florida Defense Lawyers' Association, the Third District Court of Appeal Historical Society and the Rosemary Barkett American Appellate Inn of Court. She has served as the president of the Third District Court of Appeal Historical Society and as co-chair of the Dade County Bar Association's Appellate Practice Section.

She has spoken on appellate and litigation support topics and written multiple articles on important issues impacting appellate and trial lawyers. Kimberly has also served as adjunct faculty at three law schools: Nova Southeastern Shepard Broad College of Law in Davie, Florida; Ave Maria School of Law in Naples, Florida; and St. Thomas University Benjamin L. Crump College of Law in Miami Gardens, Florida.

Prior to joining the firm, Kimberly was the head of the appellate division at a local defense firm. Before entering private practice, Kimberly served as a Career Research Attorney for the Honorable David M. Gersten of the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami, Florida. She also interned at the Third District and at the Florida Supreme Court in Tallahassee, Florida, while in law school.

Kimberly graduated from the University of Florida, Gainesville, with a Bachelor of Science in Public Relations with high honors. She subsequently attended the University of Miami School of Law in Coral Gables, Florida, where she obtained her juris doctor.

Honors & Awards

•AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell
•The Best Lawyers in America, Appellate Practice (2026)
•Florida Trend, Legal Elite, 2023 Notable Women Leaders in Law
•South Florida Legal Guide, Top Lawyer, Appellate Law (2021)
•Florida Super Lawyers Rising Star (2015-2020)
•South Florida Legal Guide, Top Up and Comers, 2020

Classes & Seminars Taught

•Obtaining Evidence from Electronic Devices in Florida, National Business Institute Seminar, November 26, 2024
•Advanced Brief Writing - Tips, Tools, and Technology for Improving Your Appellate Brief, Miami-Dade Bar's Appellate Court Committee CLE, October 31, 2024
•A Not-So- “Little” Problem with Precedent: Intra-District Conflicts in Florida’s District Court of Appeals, The Florida Bar Appellate Practice Section's Audio Webcast, August 15, 2023
•Insurer Malpractice Claims Against Defense Counsel: Recognizing, Defending, and Preventing Potential Claims - Common Errors and Strategies for Avoiding Them, Panelist, Strafford CLE Webinar, January 24, 2023
•Brief Writing for the Third DCA, Moderator, Florida Bar's Appellate Practice Section's Practicing Before the Florida Third District Court of Appeal 2022 CLE Seminar, Miami, FL, October 28, 2022
•Preventing Defective Jury Instructions In Personal Injury Trials: Leveraging Errors on Appeal - Part III Common Objections, Panelist, Strafford CLE Webinar, September 7, 2022
•UNprecedented, Summarily:A Podcast for Busy Lawyers, June 23, 2022
•Punitive Damages and Interlocutory Appeals, Panelist, Miami-Dade Bar Miami Law Con, April 22, 2022
•Everything Old is New Again Series - A Conversation with the Judiciary: Challenges and Opportunities in the Changing Landscape of Appellate Practice, Co-Host/Moderator, Florida Bar Winter Meeting Virtual CLE, Guardian ad Litem Program and Florida Bar Appellate Practice Section, January 26, 2022
•56 Feds are Coming: Strategies Using the Upcoming Florida Summary Judgment Standard, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, January 15, 2021
•The Great Font Debate, Issues on Appeal Podcast, January 2021
•Hidden Essentials of Appellate Law, Co-Chair, Florida Bar Appellate Practice Section, West Palm Beach, FL, February 2019
•Understanding Hearsay and Keeping Evidence Out (Pre and Post Trial), The Rules of Evidence: A Practical Toolkit, National Business Institute, Fort Lauderdale 2017

Published Works

•'The ‘Sunshine’ State: New Comparative Negligence Jury Instructions Following the Adoption of House Bill 837,' Daily Business Review, September 20, 2024
•'Where Are We Now? Punitive Damages Claims in Fla. 2 Years Post-Interlocutory Review Rule Change,' Daily Business Review, March 15, 2024
•“Transparency in Damages Now or Later: The Jury is Still Out,” CJLA Quarterly Digest, December 2023
•'Viewpoint: Florida High Court Tapped Brakes on Dangerous Instrumentality Liability,' Insurance Journal, December 26, 2023
•'A Not-So-Little Problem With Precedent: Intra-District Conflict in Florida District Courts of Appeal,' Florida Bar Journal, December 15, 2022
•'Punitive Damage Amendments Soon Subject to Immediate Interlocutory Appeal,' Daily Business Review, February 9, 2022
•'Decision Creates Potential for Legal Malpractice Actions Against Retained Defense Attorneys,' Daily Business Review, July 30, 2021
•'How I Made Partner: I Opened the Door to Partnership by Becoming an Appellate Specialist, Says Kimberly Berman of Marshall Dennehey,' Law.com, May 4, 2021
•'Senate Bill 72 May Be Effective 'Vaccine' Against COVID-19-Related Claims,' Orlando Medical News, April 7, 2021
•'Commentary: Florida Adoption of Federal Judgment Standard a Win For Insurers,' Insurance Journal, January 6, 2021
•'Florida Courts Clarify Role of Appraisal in Coverage Claims Disputes ', Insurance Journal, December 10, 2020
•'Florida Supreme Court Hosts Historic Remote Oral Arguments During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Florida Supreme Court Historical Society’s Historical Review magazine, Spring/Summer 2020
•'Transitioning From In-Person to Remote Oral Arguments in Fla. Appellate Courts,' Daily Business Review, April 28, 2020
•“Justice Alan Lawson’s Commitment to Service Runs Deep,” Florida Supreme Court Historical Society Historical Review Magazine, Fall/Winter 2019
•“Justice R. Fred Lewis Returns to Miami for a Celebration of His Legal and Judicial Career,” Florida Supreme Court Historical Society Historical Review Magazine, Summer/Fall 2019
•'Drafting Jury Instructions That Win Appeals,' Certworthy, the newsletter of the DRI's Appellate Advocacy Committee, Issue 1, June 29, 2018
•'A Cure for 'Acute Motion Sickness': A Practitioner's Guide to Motion Practice in Florida's Appellate Courts,' FIU Law Review, Vol. 12, Number 2, Spring 2017
•'Is That Claim Covered?,' Claims Magazine, January 2017
•'How to Confuse Your Read Effectively,' For the Defense, DRI:The Voice of the Defense Bar, December 2012
•'The Butler Tetralogy: The Tipsy Coachman Doctrine Revisited,' 85 Fla. B.J. 7, July/August 2011
•'Common Mistakes Students Make at Oral Argument,' The Gavel, Ave Maria School of Law Moot Court Newsletter, Vol. 5, Issue 2, Fall 2011
•'Upstairs at the Third DCA: The Specific Duties of an Appellate Law Clerk, Part II,' The Bulletin, Dade County Bar Assocation, June 2011
•'Upstairs at the Third DCA: The General Duties of an Appellate Law Clerk, Part I,' The Bulletin, Dade County Bar Association, January 2011
•'A Day in the Life of a Third DCA Law Clerk: The Arms of An Appellate Judge,' The Record, Journal of the Appellate Practice Section of the Florida Bar, Vol. XVIII, No. 1, Fall 2010

Media Commentary

•'Appellate Pro Bono Attorneys Step Up to Defend Children,' The Florida Bar News, February 16, 2023

Legal Teaching Position

•Adjunct Faculty, Nova Southeastern Shepard Broad College of Law, Davie, FL (2014-2015)
•Adjunct Faculty, Ave Maria School of Law, Naples, FL (2009-2013)
•Adjunct Faculty/Mock Trial Team Coach, St. Thomas University School of Law, Miami Gardens, FL (2008-2011)

Pro Bono

•Florida Guardian Ad Litem Office, Defending Best Interests (DBI) program

Certifications

•Board Certified, Appellate Practice, The Florida Bar

Results

Summary Judgment Secured in a Foodborne Illness Wrongful Death Matter

We won summary judgment in a foodborne illness wrongful death case. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against multiple parties, including the seafood supplier, distributors, transporters and the restaurant that served the decedent. The plaintiff alleged the decedent died as a result of eating raw oysters that contained vibrio vulnificus. We represented the supplier and argued there was no evidence the oysters were defective when they left the supplier’s hands. An expert was retained to support our motion for summary judgment. The expert prepared an affidavit citing the applicable duties pertaining to the harvesting, processing, and transportation of the oysters and stated the supplier did not breach any of the applicable duties. Utilizing calculated pressure tactics in a long-term strategy execution, plaintiff’s counsel eventually conceded that the record evidence did not support a finding that the supplier breached its duties, resulting in the court granting summary judgment. The case remains ongoing with multimillion dollar demands against the remaining defendants.

Obtained Reversal of Non-Final Order in a Wrongful Death Case

We obtained reversal of a non-final order in a wrongful death case against a dive captain, dive master and the corporate entity dive companies. A woman drowned while scuba diving on a chartered tour. Following her death, the toxicology report revealed high levels of illicit drugs and alcohol. During the course of litigation, her estate moved for leave to amend their complaint to add a claim for gross negligence and punitive damages, claiming the defendants were grossly negligent for failing to use the buddy system and for allowing the decedent to dive when they knew or should have known she was intoxicated. The estate also claimed gross negligence against the dive master for allowing the decedent out of his eyesight for four to ten minutes during the dive, despite having identified the decedent as requiring “special assistance.” In support of their motion, the estate relied on the police statements, deposition testimony and an expert report. The defendants argued the evidence was insufficient to support the amendment and contended that none of the witnesses knew that the decedent was intoxicated before she dove. In granting the motion, the trial court did not make an affirmative finding that the estate had made a reasonable showing by evidence, which would provide a reasonable evidentiary basis to recover punitive damages. On appeal, the Fourth District agreed with our arguments and reversed on several grounds. First, the Fourth District concluded the trial court applied the wrong legal standard. Second, the court found the estate failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages against the dive captain and dive master. Third, the estate’s proposed amended complaint did not properly allege a claim against the corporate entity defendants.

Thought Leadership

Florida Appellate Court Affords Lyft Broad Immunity Under Section 627.748(18), Florida Statutes (2022), for the Actions of One of its Drivers

May 15, 2026

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation claims against transportation network company (TNC), Lyft Florida, Inc., concluding such claims are barred by the plain text of section 627.748(18), Florida Statutes (2022).In Haddad v. Lyft Florida, Inc., 4D2025-017 (Fla. 4th DCA May 13, 2026), a rideshare passenger alleged she was assaulted by her Lyft driver. She sued for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, alleging statements on Lyft’s website led her to believe that her ride would be safe and that she would not suffer personal injuries at the hands of a Lyft driver. Lyft moved to dismiss, contending that section 627.748(18) provided it with immunity against such claims.Subsection 18 provides that “[a] TNC is not liable under general law by reason of owning, operating, or maintaining the digital network accessed by a TNC driver or rider...for harm to persons or property which results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of a motor vehicle operating as a TNC vehicle while the driver is logged on to the digital network” under three circumstances if: (1) there is no negligence under this section or criminal wrongdoing under the federal or Florida criminal code on the part of the TNC; (2) the TNC has fulfilled all of its obligations under this section with respect to the TNC driver; and (3) the TNC is not the owner or bailee of the motor vehicle that caused harm to persons or property.The trial court agreed that subsection 18 provided Lyft with immunity and dismissed the complaint.With the benefit of oral argument, the Fourth District affirmed the dismissal. In doing so, the court concluded that subsection 18’s plain text makes clear that the immunity conferred under section 627.748(18) is much broader than traditional vicarious liability. Thus, the passenger’s claims for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations, which arose out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle operating as a TNC vehicle while the driver was logged on to the network, were barred. It did not matter that the complaint purported to plead negligence by Lyft rather than a traditional vicarious liability theory. The negligent act asserted against the TNC had to relate to a negligent failure to meet the statute’s requirements for rideshare companies.This is a favorable decision for TNC companies. Plaintiffs will need to carefully tailor their allegations to overcome the broad immunity set forth in the statute. Otherwise, their claims will be subject to dismissal out of the gate. TNC companies should look to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaints from the outset. The immunity is not a traditional affirmative defense. Thus, trial courts can rule on the immunity at the motion to dismiss stage.

Daily Business Review

The ‘Sunshine’ State: New Comparative Negligence Jury Instructions Following the Adoption of House Bill 837

September 20, 2024

The Florida Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases has proposed and now adopted new jury instructions to address the changes made to the modified comparative fault scheme.

News

98 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2026 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

August 20, 2025

Kimberly Kanoff Berman and Elizabeth Ferguson Named Women Leaders in Law by Florida Trend

December 1, 2023