Timothy O. McMahon, a partner in Conroy Simberg's Orlando office, currently practices in all areas of general liability defense, with an emphasis on construction defects. He has represented general contractors, developers and subcontractors of various trades in disputes involving apartment complexes, multi-story/multi-family condominium projects, and single family homes. McMahon is admitted to practice in all Florida and Michigan state courts, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and the United States Courts of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit.
Admitted to Practice:
- Florida, 2010
- U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, 2012
- U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1999
- Michigan, 1996
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 1996
- Wayne State University School of Law, Juris Doctorate, cum laude, 1996
- Order of the Coif
- Law Review
- Moot Court
- Michigan State University, Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration/Pre-Law, 1993
- "In Florida, Construction is Zooming 2021," Co-Presenter, Conroy Simberg Webinar, April 2021
- "Once Upon A Time in Florida: Construction Defect Litigation 2020," Co-Presenter, Conroy Simberg Webinar Series, May 2020
- "A Suit Is Born...Construction Defect Litigation In Florida," Co-Presenter, Conroy Simberg Webinar Series, April 2019
- Florida Construction Law, Conroy Simberg, 2013
- Florida Construction Law, Conroy Simberg, 2012
- SCO Condominium Association v. DTO Development et. al.
- Successfully represented alleged general contractor in a dispute regarding alleged construction defects at a large, multi-story condominium development in downtown Orlando, Florida. Multi-party case involving third-party claims against subcontractors and cross claims against alleged construction manager.
- Echelon Homes v. Carter Lumber
- Represented plaintiff home builder in claims against a construction material supply company alleging that the defendant supply company knew property was stolen or embezzled by the client’s employee. Michigan Supreme Court ruled that actual knowledge of converted or stolen property could be established by circumstantial evidence.