BIRMINGHAM FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, AND NORTH AMERICAN MANAGERS, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
MOSS MANUFACTURING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ALAN D. FULTON INSURANCE, INC., 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.
This case concerns whether an insurance broker acted as an agent for the insurer, binding the insurer to increased coverage. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that an agency relationship existed and the insurer was liable for the loss.
Yes, an agency relationship existed between Fulton Insurance and Birmingham Fire Insurance Company. Therefore, Fulton's assurance to Moss Manufacturing was sufficient to bind Birmingham Fire to provide the increased coverage.
[1] The existence of an agency relationship is ordinarily a question of fact for the trier of fact.
[2] An insurance agent's response that an increase in coverage will be taken care of is sufficient to bind the insurer to provide the increased coverage.
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“It is well settled that the existence of an agency relationship is ordinarily a question to be determined by the trier of fact in accordance with the evidence adduced at trial.”
Establishes the legal principle regarding the determination of agency relationships.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoss Manufacturing requested an increase in insurance coverage from its broker, Fulton Insurance. Fulton assured Moss the request would be handled. Fo…
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 Claim For Punitive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant Birmingham Fire Insurance Co. appeals from a final judgment awarding damages to both appellees upon a ruling that appellee Fulton Insurance, Inc. was an agent of appellant so that when appellee Moss Manufacturing requested an increase in insurance coverage at its Liberty City warehouse, the response by appel-lee Fulton that the request would be taken care of was sufficient to bind appellant to provide the increased coverage. The warehouse was destroyed by fire in the “Liberty City Riots” four days after the request was made by appellee Moss to appellee Fulton Insurance.
It is well settled that the existence of an agency relationship is ordinarily a question to be determined by the trier of fact in accordance with the evidence adduced at trial. Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1983); Cirou v. Basler, 432 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Savigliano, 422 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Scott v. Sun Bank of Volusia County, 408 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Cleveland Compania Maritima, S.A. Panama v. Logothetis, 378 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Bernstein v. Dwork, 320 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Having read the briefs and the record submitted in this case, and considered the arguments of counsel, it is clear that the trial court was eminently correct in finding that an agency relationship existed between appellee Fulton Insurance and appellant and that the actions of appellant’s agent on May 14, 1980 bound appellant to pay the full loss claim arising out of the May 18, 1980 fire. We find no error in the award of attorneys’ fees. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Vordermeier, 415 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 421 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1982); Florida Rock & Tank Lines, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 399 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), section 627.-428, Florida Statutes (1981).
Appellee Moss Manufacturing’s cross-appeal contesting the dismissal of its claim for punitive damages by the trial court has been considered and we have concluded that no error has been demonstrated.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mooring Prods. Corp. OF Fla. v. Great Sw. Fire Ins. Co., 498 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…that the insurance agent was not the agent of appellee for the purpose of the issuance of this policy. This determination was supported by substantial competent evidence. Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Moss Manufacturing, Inc., 446 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.3d DCA 1984); General Insurance Co. v. Ramanovski, 443 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). AFFIRMED. [*981] ANSTEAD, J., concurs. GLICKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion.…
-
Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 828 F.2d 686 (11th Cir. 1987)…9, 71 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1968) (citing American Can Co. v. Horlamus Corp., 341 F. 2d 730 (5th Cir.1965)); see also Borg-Warner Leasing v. Doyle Elec. Co., 733 F. 2d 833, 836 (11th Cir.1984); Birmingham Fire Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Moss Manufacturing, Inc., 446 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984); Scott v. Sun Bank of Volusia County, 408 So. 2d 591, 593 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981). Data Lease need not point to an express agreement in order to establish that an agency relationship existed between Citibank and the third party…
Authorities Cited
- Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1983)
- Bernstein v. Dwork, 320 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Cirou v. Basler, 432 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Scott v. SUN Bank OF Volusia Cnty., 408 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Vordermeier, 415 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Caesar Mauti v. Lowe, 378 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Cleveland Compania Maritima v. Pantelis Logothetis, 378 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Fla. Rock & Tank Lines, Inc. v. The Cont'l Ins. Co., 399 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Savigliano, 422 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)