GEORGE BENNETT D/B/A LONDON LUGGAGE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
I. B. BERK, INDIVIDUALLY, KANE INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., AND THE UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, 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.
Plaintiff Bennett appealed summary judgments dismissing his fire loss claim against an insurance broker and insurer after his fire coverage was cancelled. The court affirmed judgment against the insurer but reversed as to the brokers, finding genuine issues of fact regarding whether the brokers negligently failed to notify Bennett of the cancellation and procure replacement coverage.
Summary judgment was improperly granted against the brokers because genuine issues of fact exist regarding their alleged negligence in failing to notify Bennett and procure replacement coverage. Summary judgment was properly affirmed against the insurer because Bennett gave written approval for the cancellation after holding the endorsement for one month, and an insured cannot defend against enforcement of a written contract solely on the ground that he signed without reading it.
[1] An insurance broker may be liable for damages resulting from a negligent failure to procure insurance when there is an agreement to do so.
[2] An insurance broker acts as an agent of the insured, not the insurer.
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“An insurance broker may be liable for damages where there is an agreement to procure insurance and a negligent failure to do so.”
Establishes the legal standard for broker liability that creates a factual question for the jury regarding Bennett's claims against the brokers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBennett held a fire insurance policy through brokers Kane Insurance Agency and Berk. The insurer communicated to the brokers that fire coverage was be…
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 Negligent Failure To Procure Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from summary judgments entered for the defendants on a claim for fire loss after cancellation of a fire insurance policy. The appeals from these summary judgments have been consolidated by this court. The complaint alleges that brokers Kane Insurance Agency, Inc. and Berk failed to notify plaintiff of the cancellation, that Kane and Beck were negligent in not procuring other insurance, and that the insurer, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, was without authority to cancel.
The pleadings and depositions show that genuine issues of fact and law exist as to the claim against brokers, Kane and Beck, thus summary judgment was improperly granted. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Perez, II v. City of Miami, 358 So. 2d 1132 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). An insurance broker may be liable for damages where there is an agreement to procure insurance and a negligent failure to do so. Marlor v. Foley Carter Ins. Co., 388 So. 2d 22 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Cat ’n Fiddle, Inc. v. Century Insurance Company, 200 So. 2d 208 (Fla.3d DCA 1967), vacated in part on other grounds, 213 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1968).
It is uncontested that the insurer communicated to brokers Kane and Beck that the fire coverage was being deleted and that this communication was understood by the brokers. Assuming, as contended, that the broker failed to explain to Bennett the significance of the policy endorsement which deleted fire coverage, the insurer cannot be held liable. An insurance broker is an agent of the insured rather than of the insurer. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Yates, 368 So. 2d 634 (Fla.2d DCA 1979).
The authority for cancellation of the fire coverage was written approval by plaintiff. This approval was given by plaintiff after he had held the endorsement for approximately one month. No party to a written contract can defend against its enforcement on the sole ground that he signed it without reading it. Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Bratton, 351 So. 2d 344 (Fla.1977); All Florida Surety Company v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508 (Fla.1956); Alejano v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 378 So. 2d 104 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).
The order of summary judgment is affirmed as to the insurer United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company; it is reversed as to brokers Kane Insurance Company and Beck, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Karem Elena Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co., 930 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…. 1st DCA 1983)(“[W]here an insurance agent or broker undertakes to obtain insurance coverage for another person and fails to do so, he may be held liable for resulting damages to that person for breach of contract or negligence.”); Bennett v. Berk, 400 So. 2d 484, 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)(“An insurance broker may be liable for damages where there is an agreement to procure insurance and a negligent failure to do so.”); Caplan v. La Chance, 219 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)(holding that an insurance .agent’s neg…
-
Glades OIL Co., Inc. v. R.A.I. Mgmt., Inc., 510 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ere an agent negligently fails to obtain any coverage for the insured. Such cases have dealt with fixed property losses, such as where the agent failed to procure a fire policy and the building supposed to be insured burned down. In Bennett v. Berk, 400 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), the court held that an agent may be liable for “damages.” In Klonis v. Armstrong, 436 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), rev. denied, 449 So. 2d 264 (Fla.1984), and deMarlor v. Foley Carter Construction Company, 386 So. 2d 22 (Fla.…
-
The Travelers Ins. Co. v. D.J. Wells, Jr., 633 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…Co. v. Huffstetler, 409 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 417 So. 2d 329 (Fla.1982). . § 627.311, Fla.Stat. (1985). .See Warehouse Foods, Inc. v. Corporate Risk Management Services, Inc., 530 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Bennett v. Berk, 400 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); deMarlor v. Foley Carter Insurance Co., 386 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Carrier Agency, Inc. v. Top Quality Building Products, Inc., 519 N.E. 2d 739 (Ind.Ct.App.1988); 43 Am.Jr.2d, Insurance § 138, 139, 142 (1982); Thomas R. Tr…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Allied van Lines, Inc. v. Ila M. Bratton, 351 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1977)
- ALL Fla. Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1956)
- CAT 'N Fiddle, Inc. v. The Century Ins. Co., 213 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Smith, 368 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- CAT 'N Fiddle, Inc. v. The Century Ins. Co., 200 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Alejano v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 378 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Perez v. City OF Miami, 358 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Pemberton v. Pemberton, 388 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- DeDAKIS v. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n, 388 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)