• Kevin P. McCoy
  • 813.229.4272
  • Share this page
Kevin P. McCoy

Kevin P. McCoy



Kevin McCoy is a tested trial lawyer. His practice includes the prosecution and defense of business litigation and complex claims, and the defense of products liability and toxic tort claims. His matters have ranged from defending small business owners to handling bet-the-business claims for major corporations.

Kevin practices under the mantra that “the best way to resolve a case is to prepare it for trial from the start.” He handles cases in all phases of litigation, from early negotiated resolutions through bench and jury trials and appellate review. He also is experienced in handling late engagements to triage cases when the original case plan has taken the case off track for resolution, or trial, and the case needs to be repositioned in a short time frame. He has been called upon to provide a fresh set of eyes to cases with high exposure risk, and to participate in mock trials on key issues that will control case outcomes.

Kevin dedicates a considerable amount of his practice developing legal solutions for vendors that provide camera technology to law enforcement throughout the United States. In that role, he develops strategies responsive to the litany of legal challenges directed at this burgeoning technology. He also serves as trial and appellate counsel in multiple state actions and federal putative class actions challenging the use of camera technology by those who seek damages after that technology has caught them breaking the law.

As part of his products liability defense practice, Kevin has gained significant experience litigating products liability and toxic tort cases for clients in the automotive, tobacco, and asbestos industries. This experience includes managing mass tort litigation across multiple jurisdictions, developing trial themes, and taking discovery of fact and expert witnesses.

Kevin has served as counsel to component part manufacturers in the automotive industry in cases in which he developed expert witnesses and conducted crash investigations to identify defenses to product defect and enhanced injury claims. He also routinely defends a substantial number of cases involving allegations of injuries relating to asbestos exposure.

Featured Insights


  • Lead trial counsel in jury trial involving business divorce issues resulting in jury verdict awarding damages to client.
  • Obtained dismissal with prejudice in putative class action alleging FDCPA claims against technology client.
  • Trial counsel in seven-day jury trial concerning professional negligence claims.
  • Lead counsel in five-day jury trial resulting concerning business claims and counterclaims resulting in judgment for client in excess of $200,000 and defeat of all claims against client.
  • Trial counsel in three-day bench trial resulting in final judgment of over $699,000, which included a determination that the client was the prevailing party entitled to the recovery of its attorneys' fees and costs in addition to the sums awarded in the judgment.
  • Trial counsel in three-day bench trial for a home builder franchisor in its prosecution of misappropriation of trade secrets claims, including a determination that the client was the prevailing party entitled to recover attorneys' fees.
  • Lead counsel in jury trial resulting in verdict for contract damages in excess of $50,000 on behalf of client.
  • Obtained summary judgment in favor of national insurer against $24 million in claims by insured for D&O coverage for investigation costs associated with a federal securities investigation.
  • Lead counsel obtaining dismissal with prejudice of millions of dollars in state qui tam whistleblower claims against corporation and individual officers of company.
  • Obtained winning arbitration decision in favor of minority business owner in business divorce that permitted owner to oust majority owners and regain control of business.
  • Obtained a dismissal with prejudice of a federal civil RICO Act claim and pendant state law claims in which the Plaintiff sought $1.5 million in damages.
  • Obtained a favorable judgment following bench trial for a home builder franchisor in its prosecution of misappropriation of trade secrets claims, including a determination that the client was the prevailing party entitled to recover attorneys' fees.
  • Represented one of the "big-three" tobacco manufacturers in its defense of post-Engle claims pending in jurisdictions throughout Florida.
  • Obtained dismissal with prejudice of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claims, Florida RICO Act claims, and mortgage foreclosure related claims on behalf of an institutional lender.
  • Obtained a dismissal with prejudice of a multi-count complaint seeking substantial damages against institutional lender client. Defended the result on appeal resulting in a PCA from the appellate court.

Representative Cases:

  • City of Oldsmar v. Trinh, 210 So. 3d 191 (Fla. 2DCA 2016).
  • State ex rel. City of Aventura v. Jimenez, 211 So. 3d 158 (Fla. 3DCA 2016).
  • Griffin v. ARX Holding Corporation, 208 So. 3d 164 (Fla. 2DCA 2016).
  • Burr v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al., 2012 WL 5290164 (M.D. Fla. 2012).
  • Riley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 6818242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).
  • Office Depot, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, 734 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2010), aff'd 2011 WL 4840951 (11th Cir. Oct. 13, 2011). Summary judgment in favor of insurer on insured's claims of over $24 million in investigation costs.
  • Harry & David v. J & P Acquisition et al., 2009 WL 4892296 (D. Or. Dec. 17, 2009) (dismissing claims against corporate principals for lack of personal jurisdiction).
  • Merritt v. Lake Jovita Homeowner's Assoc. et al., 2010 WL 627531 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2010) (awarding appellate attorneys' fees in favor of clients for their defense of a frivolous appeal).

Featured Insights

All Insights


  • AV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell
  • Most Effective Lawyers Award, Daily Business Review (2016)
  • Selected for inclusion in Florida Super Lawyers Rising Stars (2011-2018)
  • Recipient, “Outstanding Pro Bono Service By A Young Lawyer,” Bay Area Volunteer Lawyers Program Award (2010)

Professional & Community Involvement

  • Member, American Bar Association
  • The Florida Bar
    • Former Committee Member, 13th Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee
  • Member, Hillsborough County Bar Association
  • Trustee, Hillsborough County Bar Foundation
  • Member, J. Clifford Cheatwood American Inn of Court (2010-2012)
  • Bay Area Legal Services
    • Chair (2016)
    • Board of Directors, Secretary (2012-2014)
  • Member, Florida Blue Key

Speaking Engagements

  • “Lights, Cameras, Action – The State of Red Light Cameras and Body Cameras in Florida,” The Florida Bar 39th Annual Local Government Law in Florida, Orlando, FL (May 7, 2016)

Pro Bono

Kevin dedicates a significant amount of time each year to helping deserving clients with their legal matters on a pro bono basis.  Kevin served as Board Chair for Bay Area Legal Services in 2016. 


  • University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law (J.D., cum laude)
    • Editor-in-Chief, University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy
  • University of Florida (B.A., with honors)
Bar Admissions
  • Florida
  • Texas
Court Admissions
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
  • Florida State Courts


Kevin offers his personal thoughts on pro bono work and explains how it has shaped his career.

Kevin describes a unique legal strategy that defined the outcome of a case.


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.