RICHARD M. BENRUBI Board Certified Civil Trial Attorney Richard M. Benrubi has developed a well-earned reputation over the years as an attorney who keeps insurance companies in check.
His practice is focused solely on representing policyholders in every manner of dispute involving insurance claims, and in early 2016 he brought that expertise to Rosenthal, Levy, Simon & Ryles when he joined the firm as an “of counsel” attorney.
Mr. Benrubi launched his legal career in 1988 after receiving his J.D. from the University of Florida. He worked in a small Fort Lauderdale insurance-defense firm and then joined the house counsel of Geico insurance, managing its West Palm Beach office for three years. This initial period of his career, working as a lawyer representing insurance companies, has proven invaluable to Mr. Benrubi today as he applies that knowledge to his cases on behalf of policyholders.
In 1995, he left Geico because he decided that he wanted to represent individuals rather than insurance companies and joined Broad and Cassel in West Palm Beach for three years. He then joined a firm where he began his focus on insurance policyholder representation. He quickly became partner at that firm, Liggio Benrubi, P.A., where he remained for 18 years before launching his own firm, the Law Office of Richard M. Benrubi, P.A., and joining Rosenthal, Levy, Simon & Ryles as of counsel.
Mr. Benrubi possesses a strong professional commitment to his clients because oftentimes his legal help is the only way they can get their lives back in order.
“I like helping people who have nowhere else to turn,” he says. “These are people who are sick, injured, disabled, need surgery. Their loved ones pass away and even though they have life insurance, the insurance company denies their claim. I get great satisfaction from helping these people out.”
His work on behalf of policyholders has also resulted in cases that have changed Florida law. In early 2016, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in his favor in Paton v. Geico General Insurance Co., holding that billing records of opposing counsel are relevant as a guiding determination of plaintiff’s attorney fees.
