Photo of Gene Murphy

Gene Murphy concentrates his practice in liability and property insurance coverage matters, as well as products liability defense. He has focused on the evaluation, litigation, and resolution of a diverse range of coverage disputes, including mediations, arbitrations, and trials. In addition to his work in Florida, he has appeared before various state and federal courts throughout the country, including courts in Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, and Texas.

Gene is a member of the Trial Lawyers Section of the Florida Bar Association, the Defense Research Institute, and the New York State Bar Association.

Gene received his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law, his LL.M. in environmental law from Pace University, and his B.A. in political science from Queens College, CUNY.

Read Gene’s bio.

Over the last decade, policyholders and insurers have actively litigated the meaning and scope of “structural damage” under the Florida statutory sinkhole scheme. In 2011, in an effort to resolve the dispute, the Florida Legislature adopted a five-part definition of “structural damage” to be applied when interpreting insurance policies providing coverage for sinkhole losses. Fla.

The courts have historically grappled with the controlling rule of law in cases involving multiple causes of loss in the property insurance coverage context. The majority of jurisdictions typically employ the doctrine of efficient proximate cause: coverage is afforded if the predominant cause of loss is a covered cause of loss. The minority of jurisdictions,

The Florida Supreme Court recently joined numerous other jurisdictions holding that general contractor overhead and profit should be included in an estimate on a property insurance claim when, based on the unique facts of the claim, it is reasonably likely that the insured will need to use a general contractor in completing the repairs.


In Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. River Manor Condominium Assoc., Inc., 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5729 (4th DCA April 10, 2013), the court primarily addressed a potential conflict between a policy exclusion and insurance coverage requirements of the Condominium Act, Fla. Stat. 718.111(11)(b). Ultimately, the court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling in

In 1500 Coral Towers Condominium Association, Inc. v. Citizens Property Ins.Co., No. 3D12-132 (3rd DCA April 3, 2013), upon rehearing and de novo review, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal withdrew its February 6, 2013 late notice ruling (see our analysis of that decision in the February 11 posting), and affirmed the

Surplus lines insurance is typically provided to insureds who, for various reasons, are not able to secure insurance from an “admitted” or “authorized” carrier in a state. Legal issues surrounding surplus line coverage sometimes involve whether or not a particular statute applies to surplus lines carriers or only “admitted” or “authorized” carriers within a state.

Typical property policies require the insured to cooperate with the insurer in the investigation of the claim, and specifically require the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss within a certain time period (in some policies this applies only where the insurer requests a proof of loss). If the insured partially complies, i.e., provides

Typical property policies require the insured to cooperate with the insurer in the investigation of the claim, and specifically require the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss, provide timely responses to an insurer’s request for documentation related to the claim and, if requested, submit to examinations under oath. If the insured fails to