FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCES BRITT, AND MIAMI AUTO LIABILITY INS. AGENCY, INC., D/B/A AUTO LIABILITY INSURANCE AGENCY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Fidelity & Casualty appeals from summary judgment affirming that an authorized agent's issuance of a temporary insurance binder is binding on the carrier as a matter of law, even when issued under an assigned risk plan and despite alleged non-compliance with premium deposit rules. The court upholds the judgment, applying the principle that an agent's acts within actual or apparent authority bind the principal.
The court holds that the summary judgment on liability is correct and affirmed. An authorized agent's acts performed within the scope of real or apparent authority bind the principal regardless of the principal's knowledge, and this well-recognized principle applies to policies issued through the FJUA without exception.
[1] An authorized insurance agent's issuance of a temporary insurance binder is binding upon the principal carrier as a matter of law.
[2] The acts of an agent performed within the scope of their real or apparent authority bind their principal, irrespective of the principal's knowledge of the agent's act.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The rule that the acts of an agent performed within the scope of his real or apparent authority are binding upon his principal, regardless of whether the principal had knowledge of the agent's act.”
Establishes the foundational legal principle controlling the court's decision that the agent's issuance of the binder binds Fidelity & Casualty
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn authorized agent issued a temporary automobile insurance binder on behalf of Fidelity & Casualty under the assigned risk plan administered by the F…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Actual Authority Of Agent cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
After we reversed the dismissal of her complaint in Britt v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 360 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), the trial judge entered summary judgment on liability for the plaintiff, holding that an authorized agent’s1 issuance of a temporary insurance binder on behalf of Fidelity & Casualty was, as a matter of law, binding upon that carrier, even though (a) the policy was issued under the assigned risk plan and (b) the rules of the Florida Joint Underwriting Association with respect to the amount of premium deposit required had arguably not been complied with.
We agree with the determination below. Our decision is controlled by “[t]he rule that the acts of an agent performed within the scope of his real or apparent authority are binding upon his principal, regardless of whether the principal had knowledge of the agent’s act.” 18 Fla. Jur. Insurance, § 318 at 292-93 (1971); e. g., Eagle Fire Co. v. Lewallen, 56 Fla. 246, 47 So. 947 (1908).
There is no reason for concluding that this well-recognized general principle does not apply to policies issued through the FJUA. See, American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Castellanos, 203 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); § 627.311(1), Fla.Stat. (1979).
On this point we distinguish Rios v. Florida Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 371 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), upon which the appellant heavily relies. That decision merely held that the agent there did not possess either the actual or apparent authority to reinstate a policy notwithstanding the insurer’s previous valid cancellation for nonpayment of premiums. Compare, 18 Fla.Jur. Insurance, §§ 318-19, supra, with 538, 645-51, and cases collected.
Affirmed.
. The carrier responded affirmatively to a request for admission propounded by the plaintiff-insured that the document in question “is a true and correct copy of an automobile insurance binder issued by the Defendant or its authorized agent.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Eagle Fire Co. v. Lewallen, 56 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1908)
- Am. Cas. Co. OF Reading v. Castellanos, 203 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Idania Rios v. Fla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 371 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Britt v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y., 360 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)