RUGON CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY AND U.S. INSURANCE AGENCY, 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.
RUGON Corporation's workers compensation insurance was cancelled by Aetna for nonpayment of premium while the company relied on its insurance agent, U.S. Insurance Agency, to maintain coverage. The trial court held the agent liable for negligently failing to inform the employer of its payment obligations, and the appellate court affirmed, finding the carrier's cancellation valid and the agent's duty clear.
The court affirmed that the carrier validly cancelled the policy under statutory conditions for nonpayment of premium, and the insurance agent is liable to the employer for negligent failure to maintain workers compensation coverage, as the employer relied entirely on the agent's expertise for all insurance-related matters.
[1] A workers' compensation carrier may validly cancel insurance coverage for nonpayment of premium if statutory conditions are met.
[2] An insurance agent may be held liable to an employer for failure to maintain workers' compensation coverage if the employer relied on the agent for all insurance matters.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 trial court found that a workers compensation carrier had validly cancelled its insurance coverage for nonpayment of premium and held the insurance agent liable to the employer for failure to keep the employer's business covered with workers compensation.”
Establishes the dual holding that the carrier's cancellation was valid but the agent remained liable for its negligence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRUGON Corporation purchased workers compensation insurance from Aetna through U.S. Insurance Agency. The policy was cancelled for nonpayment of premiu…
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 Negligence Of Insurance Agent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court found that a workers compensation carrier had validly cancelled its insurance coverage for nonpayment of premium and held the insurance agent liable to the employer for failure to keep the employer’s business covered with workers compensation. We find no error and affirm, the carrier having met the statutory conditions to cancel the policy. It was clear from the trial court’s findings that the employer relied on the agent for all matters in regard to this insurance.1 Therefore, under the reasoning of the following authorities, we affirm. Insurance Company of North America v. Sunrise Catering, 447 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Woodcock v. Motors Insurance Corporation, 422 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Difalco v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, 400 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Affirmed.
. 5. That RUGON CORPORATION at all times from August 18, 1979, to the date of the death of Pablo Rodriguez on July 11, 1980, relied upon the expertise and guidance.of UNITED STATES AMERICAN INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., to insure that the Workers Compensation insurance policy with AETNA was in full force and effect.
6. That at all times from the date of the purchase of the afore-noted policy upon through and including the date of the death of Pablo Rodriguez, UNITED STATES AMERICAN INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., led the Plaintiff, RU-GON CORPORATION, to believe that their policy of Workers Compensation with AETNA was in full force and effect.
**
8. I further find that the officers of RUGON CORPORATION relied totally on Elda Garcia of U.S. AMERICAN INSURANCE AGENCY for all insurance information and to answer all insurance questions. Nora Rubio of RUGON CORPORATION neither speaks nor reads English, and took all insurance papers and questions to Mrs. Garcia for handling.
Mrs. Rubio relied on Mrs. Garcia’s expertise for all insurance information. Mrs. Rubio stated that she relied on Mrs. Garcia's 14 years of experience in the business because she knew nothing about insurance.
Pursuant to these findings of fact, I hereby make the following conclusions of law:
**
4. That UNITED STATES AMERICAN INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., was negligent in failing to inform the Plaintiff, RUGON CORPORATION, of their monetary obligation to insure that their Workers Compensation coverage would remain in force as a result of which the Plaintiff, RUGON CORPORATION, was without Workers Compensation insurance on July 11, 1980.
5. That UNITED STATES AMERICAN INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., is obligated to indemnify the Plaintiff for any amounts of damage that the Plaintiff, RUGON CORPORATION, may be responsible to pay to Pablo Rodriguez, in Workers Compensation benefits as a result of his demise. Olnick v. Robert Myers Painting, 384 So. 2d 54 (Fla.1980); Houdaille v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1979)
- Woodcock v. Motors Ins. Corp., 422 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Difalco v. Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 400 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. Hostzclaw, 384 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Sunrise Catering and Carolyn Sprayberry, 447 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)