Dena Beth Sacharow


Dena Sacharow, Florida Attorney Photo

Dena Sacharow is a partner, whose practice focuses on defending lawyers and law firms in legal malpractice matters, personal injury and property damage matters, insurance coverage and liability matters, and bad faith claims, Florida Bar Grievance and Unlicensed Practice of Law Complaints, and responding to Civil Remedy Notices on behalf of insurance companies. Ms. Sacharow has successfully defended multiple lawsuits at the trial court level and through appeal, securing numerous dismissals with prejudice which were upheld on appeal. Ms. Sacharow has also audited and reviewed extensive fee submissions in support of expert witness engagements and for compliance with insurance company billing guidelines and The Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. She represents property insurers who issue direct-to-homeowner policies as well as lender-placed coverage. Ms. Sacharow often secures dismissals and summary judgments in state and Federal Court on behalf of our clients, reducing defense costs, and minimizing or eliminating indemnity exposure. Keller Landsberg, through Ms. Sacharow, is also the exclusive Florida firm defending one of Canada’s largest automobile insurers in Florida litigation.

Ms. Sacharow attended Florida State University where she graduated cum laude with a double major in Criminology and International Affairs and she received a Certificate in Security Administration. During her junior and senior years at Florida State, Ms. Sacharow provided legal and legislative research for the Florida Guardian ad Litem Program. In addition, she spent a summer studying abroad in Prague, Czech Republic.

In 2010, she earned her J.D. from Nova Southeastern University, graduating magna cum laude in the top 7% of her class. While attending law school, she was a Notes and Comments Editor of Nova Law Review, was a member of the Moot Court Board and competed nationally in moot court competitions. Ms. Sacharow was National Finalist, 4th Best Oralist and won the Best Brief Award in the 2009 Thomas Tang Moot Court Competition. As a result of her success in moot court competitions, Ms. Sacharow was inducted into the Order of the Barristers, a national honorary society that recognizes law students who have excelled in advocacy programs, and was named the 2009-2010 Moot Court Society’s Mootie of the Year.

She is also the author of  “Client Communication Regarding Proposals for Settlement Can Prevent Legal Malpractice Claims,” Broward County Bar Association Barrister, October 2017, and “To Have and To Hold: Your Bar License,” Barrister, September 2018. She has presented at numerous conferences on matters ranging from Florida property and tort reform to legal malpractice issues. She is also certified by the Florida Department of Financial Services to provide continuing education courses to insurance company clients and adjusters licensed in Florida. She has provided continuing education courses for insurers across the country on various topics involving the insurance industry, including but not limited to claims practices for effective and good faith claims handling, case law and legislative updates, liability claims handling, and policy interpretation. She also customizes course programs to the needs of the insurer and based on insurance industry trends.

Ms. Sacharow is also AV Preeminent® rated by Martindale-Hubbell®. She was a 2021 recipient of the Broward County Bar Association’s Top 40 Under 40 Award.

Keller Landsberg PA is a member of The Harmonie Group, a national affiliation of leading commercial defense firms. Ms. Sacharow serves as a member of the Board of Directors and sits on various Committees. She has presented at Harmonie Conferences, including presenting at the Fall 2023 Conference on “How To Handle The Florida Litigation Tsunami: An Update On The Florida Tort Reform And Its Practical Effects On Handling Claims And Litigation In The State Of Florida.”

She is a member of the Broward County Bar Association, American Bar Association, Florida Defense Lawyers Association, Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers.


Bar Admissions

  • 2010, Florida
  • 2010, New Jersey
  • 2011, New York
  • 2010, U.S. District Court, New Jersey
  • 2011, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
  • 2011, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
  • 2019, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida

Significant Engagements and Results

  • Successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice which was affirmed on appeal in a legal malpractice case in Miami-Dade County. The Personal Representative of an Estate filed a Wrongful Death and Survival Claim against the Decedent’s former lawyers and law firm alleging that the failure to timely file a claim for stacking underinsured motorist coverage caused the Decedent to commit suicide three and a half years after the Law Firm was discharged. The Decedent was rendered permanently and totally disabled following a motor vehicle accident in January 2008 which occurred during the course and scope of his employment. The employer’s UM carrier promptly tendered the full UM policy limit. Decedent retained the Law Firm in June 2012 to file a bar grievance against the Decedent’s former lawyer and to assist with collection efforts on a workers’ compensation judgment. When inquiry was made regarding stacking UM coverage, the UM carrier asserted that the policy did not provide UM stacking coverage because the named insured was a corporation. The Decedent discharged the Law Firm on October 1, 2015 and retained new counsel. In January 2016 (eight years after the accident), subsequent counsel asserted a new demand for stacking UM coverage, which was rejected based on expiration of the statute of limitations. The subsequent lawyers then sued the UM carrier, but the case was dismissed on August 25, 2017 on the basis that the claims were time-barred. The Decedent committed suicide on March 10, 2019. On August 23, 2019 (almost four years after discharging the Law Firm), the Decedent’s Estate filed a cause of action for damages “for legal malpractice resulting in wrongful death.” The Law Firm moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice, arguing, in part, that the Law Firm did not owe a duty to the Decedent to prevent his suicide and that the statute of limitations had expired on any purported legal malpractice claims. The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice on all grounds and the ruling was affirmed on appeal. Andreasen v. Klein, Glasser, Park & Lowe, P.L. et al., 342 So. 3d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).
  • Secured summary judgment in favor of a commercial insurer in a Hurricane Irma claim on two separate grounds. First, following the carrier’s initial adjustment of the claim, the insured failed to provide notice of a supplemental or reopened claim prior to filing the lawsuit as required pursuant to the notice provision of the policy, rendering the lawsuit premature. The Trial Court agreed and granted summary judgment based on the noncompliance with the notice provision. Second, the policy provided that replacement cost damages were not recoverable unless and until repairs were completed and those repairs were completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the loss. The insured never submitted a claim for actual cash value damages prior to filing or during the lawsuit. Instead, the insured only sought replacement cost value damages, but had never completed repairs, thereby failing to comply with the terms of the policy. The Trial Court agreed and granted summary judgment finding that since the insured failed to complete repairs, the insured was not entitled to recover replacement cost value damages pursuant to the terms of the policy.  The Trial Court’s rulings were affirmed on appeal. The Trial Court awarded the insurer attorney’s fees and costs against the insured. New Hope Ministries, Inc. v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 340 So. 3d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).
  • Secured summary judgment in favor of a commercial insurer in a Hurricane Irma claim based on res judicata and collateral estoppel. After the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of a commercial insurer in a Hurricane Irma claim, the same insured filed a second lawsuit attempting to allege that the insured had submitted notice of a supplemental or reopened claim by virtue of discovery responses served in the first lawsuit. This issue was raised by the insured in the first lawsuit in a Motion for Rehearing. In addition, the insured did not complete repairs or otherwise take any other action between entry of summary judgment in the first lawsuit and filing of the second lawsuit to establish a change in circumstances and the submission of a supplemental or reopened claim. Although the Trial Court initially granted a motion to dismiss based on res judicata and collateral estoppel, the Trial Court provided the insured with leave to file an Amended Complaint. Summary Judgment was subsequently granted in favor of the insurer on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
  • After eight years of contentious litigation over insurance benefits including a five-day trial, KLPA partners, Raymond Robin and Dena Sacharow, prevailed on appeal. First, they recovered a judgment in the trial court for $1,755,436.85 in favor of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida and against Zenith Insurance Company on claims for Equitable Subrogation and Unjust Enrichment. Blue Cross sought reimbursement for amounts it paid for medical treatment of an injured employee which should have been paid by Zenith, the employer’s workers compensation insurer. Zenith appealed. On October 12, 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeal summarily affirmed the trial court judgment a day after oral argument. Blue Cross also prevailed on its claims for attorneys’ fees in both the trial court and in the Fourth DCA. 
  • One year before trial, Partners David Keller, Dena Sacharow, and Maria Vernace assumed the representation of an excess insurance carrier in a long-running insurance coverage dispute spanning a full decade. After a jury trial lasting over two weeks in Miami-Dade Circuit Court in September and October 2018, Keller Landsberg PA secured a defense verdict against an excess professional liability insurer, that was seeking to avoid and shift responsibility to our client, the prior excess insurer, for its share of a $10 Million settlement of a professional liability claim against a prominent mid-size Miami commercial litigation firm. The Plaintiff excess carrier employed a well-known, highly regarded jury consultant to assist before and during jury selection, and presented expert testimony from a nationally recognized authority on excess and surplus lines insurance coverage matters. The Keller Landsberg team and its client prevailed without the use of a jury consultant and without reliance on expert testimony. A confidential resolution was reached after the defense verdict and no appeal was taken.
  • Successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice which was affirmed on appeal in a legal malpractice case against a sole practitioner in Broward County. After the co-personal representative named in a will failed to qualify as personal representative under Florida Statutes, he sued the lawyer who drafted the codicil to the will alleging legal malpractice in failing to advise the potential personal representative and decedent of the qualification requirements for serving as personal representative. Plaintiff alleged damages in excess of $2 million, based on the Estate’s value of nearly $200 million. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice because the plaintiff was not a third party beneficiary of the attorney-client relationship between the lawyer and the decedent, and thus could not state a claim for legal malpractice. Two days after oral argument before the Fourth District Court of Appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the ruling in a per curiam decision. Haber v. Kliston, 247 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
  • Successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice in an abuse of process and conspiracy case filed in Broward County against a law firm and several lawyers.  The Law Firm represented the Wife in a dissolution action. Following the dissolution action, an issue arose regarding the Husband’s obligation to pay alimony. After the Wife sought to enforce the alimony determination, contentious litigation ensued, which was ultimately resolved via mediation. After the mediation, the Husband sued his now ex-Wife, her counsel, and her accountant for malicious prosecution and conspiracy regarding the actions taken to collect the unpaid alimony. After serving a Motion for Sanctions, the Husband added claims for abuse of process and conspiracy. The Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice finding all matters were resolved at the mediation, a lawyer cannot conspire with her client unless there is a personal stake in the illegal conduct separate from advancing the interests of the client, plaintiff could not plead or prevail on an abuse of process claim and the litigation privilege provided the lawyers immunity. The dismissal was affirmed on appeal. Rodriguez-Molina v. Fixel & Larocco, 298 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).