• Dane R. Blunt
  • 813.229.4156
  • Share this page
Dane R. Blunt

Dane R. Blunt



Dane Blunt is a multifaceted lawyer with more than a decade of commercial real estate and construction industry experience. Clients benefit from the holistic perspective he has gained by working on real estate projects from the inception of deals through the resolution of disputes. His deep understanding of the issues and complexities surrounding real estate and construction projects enable him, on the front end, to proactively protect client interests while minimizing the costs and risks associated with disputes that may arise.

Dane’s clients include owners, investors, lenders, developers, general contractors, and commercial landlords and tenants. He litigates disputes that arise in connection with the full range of commercial projects, including hotels, condominiums, retail shopping centers, and office complexes. He also represents institutional lenders, including CMBS lenders, in negotiating, documenting, and closing complex commercial loans of all types, including construction, acquisition and development, and permanent and mezzanine loans for all types of properties, including hotels, retail shopping centers, office complexes, and apartment complexes. In addition, he routinely represents lenders, servicers, and mortgage investors in foreclosure actions and other loan, guaranty, and security agreement enforcement proceedings.

A trial lawyer, Dane has significant experience litigating issues in state and federal courts involving title to real property, easements, restrictive covenants, real estate contracts, title insurance coverage, closing protection letters, mortgage foreclosures, lender liability, creditor’s rights, bankruptcy, real estate workouts, commercial leases, non-competition agreements, and a range of business disputes including class actions. During a recent trial in Miami Circuit Court’s Complex Business Litigation Division, Dane obtained a ruling on behalf of his developer client that enabled it to proceed with the development of a multimillion-dollar, ultra-modern condominium and hotel project, in a case that involved issues of Florida’s Marketable Record Title Act, restrictive covenants, and claims to easements.

Dane is focused on providing responsive, efficient counsel that recognizes and prioritizes his clients’ business concerns. He is particularly adept at helping clients navigate evolving eDiscovery challenges and preservation obligations.

Dane is the co-manager of the Tampa National Trial Practice Group.


Featured Insights


  • Downing v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co., No. 3:16-cv-119-TCB (N.D. Ga. Sept. 13, 2017. ) Read Order. Affirmed, No. 17-14299 (11th Cir. April 12, 2018). Read Opinion. Putative class action against six title insurers alleging unlawful conspiracy to defraud purchasers of title insurance in Georgia by scheming to eliminate discounts from published premiums dismissed with prejudice because, inter alia, alleged misrepresentations of law are not actionable, and even if actionable, were not proximate cause of alleged injury to plaintiff. 
  • The Jockey Club Condo. Apts., Inc., v. Apeiron Miami, LLC, Case No. 16-5957 CA 40 (Fla. 11th Judicial Cir., Cir. Ct. July 5, 2017). Final order granting developer’s motion for rehearing, removing tennis courts from easement area, and suspending remaining common area easement during developer’s maintenance, operation and development of its property. Read Order.
  • The Jockey Club Condo. Apts., Inc., v. Apeiron Miami, LLC, Case No. 16-5957 CA 40 (Fla. 11th Judicial Cir., Cir. Ct. May 26, 2017). Final order entered after a five-day bench trial ruling that recorded instruments relied on by plaintiffs to block our developer client from developing and even assuming maintenance of its own property are either barred by MRTA or do not preclude future development and do not preclude the developer from assuming maintenance. Read Order.
  • The Jockey Club Condo. Apts v. Apeiron Miami, LLC and Jockey Club III Assoc., Case No. 16-5957 CA 40 (Fla. 11th Judicial Cir., Cir. Ct. February 4, 2017). Order granting summary judgment based on MRTA and extinguishing a restrictive covenant entered into prior to root of title and belatedly recorded after root of title. Read Opinion. Order granting summary judgment on restrictive covenant recorded without specific legal description of property. Read Opinion. Order granting summary judgment on claim to easements by prescription. Read Opinion
  • Caledonian Bank & Trust Limited v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 8:13-cv-1470-T-36TGW, 2015 WL 5542544 *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2015) Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in $30 million action for aiding and abetting fraud and action for civil conspiracy to commit fraud. Read the Order.
  • PNC Bank, N.A. v. Tarpon Lakeside Development, Inc., No. 10-3661 CI, Div. 19 (Fla. 6th Jud. Cir. July 7, 2014) Final Summary Deficiency Judgment and Final Summary Judgment on Guaranties entered against Borrower and Guarantors.
  • Diaz v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., No. 12-04902 (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct. Jan. 4, 2013). Dismissal with prejudice of negligence claim brought by lender against title insurer on grounds that claim was barred by Florida’s economic loss rule.
  • In re: Tarpon Lakeside Development, Inc., No. 8:11-bk-17475-KRM (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2012) Order denying confirmation of debtor’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan and dismissing case after contested confirmation hearing.
  • Beato v. Morrison Financial Services of Florida, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:12-cv-1233-T-23EAJ (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2012). Order granting motion to dismiss complaint for wrongful foreclosure, fraud, declaratory relief, quiet title, and RESPA violations, dismissing RESPA violations with prejudice and declining supplemental jurisdiction. Read Order.
  • Brake v. Wells Fargo Financial System Florida, Inc., No. 8:10-CV-338-T-33TGW, 2011 WL 6412430 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2011). Dismissal of fraud, negligence, promissory estoppel and claims asserted under the National Housing Act against lender on various grounds including the economic loss rule, the banking statute of frauds, and a finding that no private right of action exists for alleged noncompliance with loss-mitigation procedures under the National Housing Act.
  • Corwin v. Lawyers Title Ins. Co., 276 F. Supp. 2d 484, No. 09–13897, 2011 WL 3346824 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 1, 2011). Denial of class certification in putative statewide consumer class action against title insurance underwriter alleging overcharging for title insurance premiums.
  • Hoving v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 256 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Mich. 2009). Denial of class certification in putative multistate class action alleging overcharging for title insurance premiums.
  • Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc. v. Hirota, No. 8:06-CV-2030, 2007 WL 1471690 (M.D. Fla. May 21, 2007). Dismissal of fraud, conspiracy and negligence claims against title insurer and closing agent on economic loss rule grounds.
  • ZC Ins. Co. v. Brooks, 962 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) Reversal of attorneys’ fees and costs awarded to plaintiff in insurance coverage dispute litigation.
  • Norman S. Cohen M.D., P.A. v. Vining, 917 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) Reversal of of summary final judgment against professional association in business dispute litigation.


  • Selected for inclusion in Florida Super Lawyers Rising Stars (2009-2018)

Professional & Community Involvement

  • American Bar Association 
    • Real Property, Probate & Trust Section 
    • Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section - Title Insurance Litigation Committee
    • Business Law Section
  • The Florida Bar 
    • Real Property, Probate & Trust Section
  • Hillsborough County Bar Association 
    • Young Lawyers Division
  • Tampa Connection, class of 2017-2018


  • Florida State University College of Law (J.D., high honors, 2004)
  • University of Florida (B.A., with honors, 2001)
Bar Admissions
  • Florida
Court Admissions
  • U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
  • Florida State Courts


The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.