Skip to Content


Daniel Enriquez is a litigator whose practice focuses on the insurance and financial services industries. He serves as coverage and monitoring counsel in complex insurance coverage matters including litigating claim disputes and analyzing coverage under cyber, media, technology, professional liability, general liability, and directors and officers policies. Daniel has assisted in drafting cyber, media and professional liability policies, and has spoken at leading cyber risk and information technology conferences.

In addition to his work in the insurance industry, Daniel has represented diverse client bases ranging from large institutional lenders and telecommunications companies to media personalities, and college football coaches. He is also involved in pro bono representation, having obtained a six-figure judgment in favor of a client who was the victim of excessive force at the hands of a police officer.

Daniel is a regular contributing writer to PropertyCasualtyFocus, the firm’s blog focused on legal developments in property casualty insurance.


  • ECB USA, Inc. v. Chubb Insurance Company of New Jersey, 587 D.Supp.3d 1165 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2022). Obtaining summary judgment for insurer in $4.8 million coverage case based on location of comma in policy and series-qualifier canon.
  • Ditech Fin. LLC v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co., No. 8:20-cv-00409, 2021 WL 4263330 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2021). Obtained summary judgment finding no coverage for $24 million settlement between loan servicer and federal government because claim was first made before the policy period.
  • Office Depot, Inc. v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co., No. 2:15-cv-02416, 2019 WL 4570011 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2019), aff’d, 829 F. App'x 263 (9th Cir. 2020). Won summary judgment on behalf of carrier against a claim for insurance coverage and indemnification with regard to a $77.5 million settlement of a qui tam action under California’s False Claims Act. Summary judgment was upheld after appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
  • PAMC Ltd. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, No. 2:18-cv-06001, 2019 WL 2158229 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019). Obtained dismissal of policyholder’s claim for coverage of $42 million False Claims Act settlement. Court found policyholder failed to provide timely notice.
  • Direct Gen. Ins. Co. v. Houston Cas. Ins. Co., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (S.D. Fla. 2015), aff’d, 661 F. App'x 980 (11th Cir. 2016). Obtained judgment in favor of professional liability insurer on insured’s $10 million claim based on broad interpretation of “related claims” provision.
  • Windhaven Managers, Inc. v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co., No. 8:14-cv-01808, 2014 WL 6674609 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2014). Obtained an order of dismissal with prejudice in favor of professional liability insurer in a coverage dispute in Southern District of Florida. The policyholder, an automobile insurer, sought coverage for a bad faith suit brought by one of its insureds. The coverage dispute involved whether a civil remedy notice of insurer violation constituted a bad faith claim in the context of a claims-made policy. The court found that the civil remedy notice — and not the later-filed bad faith suit — constituted the “claim first made” under the policy. Because this claim was first made before the policy period, the court found no coverage and dismissed the policyholder’s complaint with prejudice. 
  • Treece v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 1:14-cv-22602, 2014 WL 7661506 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2014). Obtained an order of dismissal with prejudice in favor of lender-placed insurance provider. The plaintiff alleged that the lender-placed insurer had been unjustly enriched by its receipt of the premium for lender-placed insurance. The court held that the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim against the insurer was legally deficient in light of the two written contracts governing the dispute — the mortgage and the insurance policy. Accordingly, the court dismissed the sole count levied against the insurer client.
  • Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 0:11-cv-62314, 2012 WL 4829124 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2012). Obtained verdict in favor of loan servicer in action brought under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g). The court found that the transfer of an assignment of mortgage to the servicer from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. did not constitute a transfer of the “debt” and thus did not trigger any obligations under § 1641(g).
  • Mercado v. Nat'l  Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 215 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Denial of petition for writ of prohibition alleging lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


Professional & Community Involvement

  • The Florida Bar
  • Future Professional Liability Underwriting Society
    • Co-Chair, Southeast Chapter
  • Leadership Council on Legal Diversity
    • Pathfinder (2016); Fellow (2021)

Speaking Engagements

  • "Trustee Luncheon: Impact of Property Insurance Legislation," Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, Miami, FL (March 1, 2023)
  • “Cyber Insurance InfoSec Requirements: What’s changing?” ITEXPO (February 15, 2023)
  • “Claims-Handling Duties as Primary and Excess Insurer- Tackling Time/Policy Limit Demands, Disclosures and Bad Faith Claims,” Carlton Fields Client Presentation (January 25, 2023)
  • “Building Your Privacy Program,” The Master’s Conference (January 24, 2023)
  • “The Latest Cyber Threats and Coverage Issues,” Carlton Fields Client Presentation (June 28, 2022)
  • “Navigating Incident Response with the Uninsured,” NetDiligence, Cyber Risk Summit (February 17, 2022)
  • “We Need To Talk About Cyber Insurance,” TitleNow PopUp Webinar (August 27, 2020)
  • “Bitcoin, Blockchains, and Insurance Opportunities,” Carlton Fields Client Presentation (September 26, 2019)
  • "Ransomware: The Latest Threats and Efforts to Stem the Tide," Carlton Fields Client Presentation (September 27, 2021)
  • "Recent Cases and Developments in Bad Faith Law From Across the Country," Carlton Fields (May 28, 2020)
  • "Cybersecurity and Privacy Litigation and Enforcement in the COVID-19 Era," Carlton Fields (May 20, 2020)

Pro Bono

  • Obtained six-figure judgment under Civil Rights Act in favor of pro bono client alleging excessive force by a former police officer. The former police officer moved for summary judgment and argued that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey. The court denied the motion and, following the subsequent withdrawal of the officer’s attorney, entered judgment in favor of the pro bono client. Robert Taylor v. David Wright, No. 11-14401 (S.D. Fla).



  • Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., 2010)
  • University of Florida (B.S., cum laude, 2007)

Bar Admissions

Court Admissions


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.