WAREHOUSE FOODS, INC., WAREHOUSE FOODS # 102, INC., AND WAREHOUSE FOODS # 103, INC., FLORIDA CORPORATIONS, APPELLANTS,
v.
CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; WILLIAM KEITH JONES; AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, 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.
Warehouse Foods corporations appealed a summary judgment denying their claim for uninsured losses from a hurricane-caused utility service interruption. The court reversed, finding that disputed material facts existed regarding whether the insurance agent breached a duty to provide adequate coverage or made actionable misrepresentations.
Summary judgment was improper because disputed issues of material fact existed regarding whether the agent negligently failed to advise the insured about coverage limitations and whether the agent's misrepresentation might warrant estoppel precluding the insurer from denying coverage.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when disputed issues of material fact exist regarding an insurer's duty to provide adequate coverage or actionable misrepresentation by an ag…
[2] An insurance agent may be liable for negligent failure to obtain coverage that is specifically requested or clearly warranted by the insured's expressed needs.
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 agent is required to use reasonable skill and diligence, and liability may result from a negligent failure to obtain coverage which is specifically requested or clearly warranted by the insured's expressed needs.”
Establishes the standard of care for insurance agents and the basis for agent liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWarehouse Foods operated grocery stores and sustained losses when utility service was interrupted for several days after a hurricane. They submitted a…
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 Actionable Misrepresentation cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellants seek review of a summary final judgment denying their claim to recover damages for uninsured losses. The lower court rejected appellants’ contention that there had been a breach of duty to provide adequate coverage or an actionable misrepresentation by the insurer, the local agency, and the insurance agent. We find that disputed issues of material fact were presented in this regard and that summary judgment therefore should not have been granted.
Appellants are corporations which were doing business as grocery stores and allegedly sustained losses when utility service was interrupted for several days after a hurricane. An insurance claim was submitted for the loss, but was denied due a policy provision limiting such coverage to those situations where there is damage to the insured’s buildings or equipment. Appellants filed a complaint seeking recovery for their losses, asserting that they had relied upon the expertise of the insurer’s agent. It was further asserted that this agent had advised that appellants would be “fully covered ... and did not need any other coverage.”
An agent is required to use reasonable skill and diligence, and liability may result from a negligent failure to obtain coverage which is specifically requested or clearly warranted by the insured’s expressed needs. See Sheridan v. Green-berg, 391 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Caplan v. LaCkance, 219 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). The claimed loss in the present case was largely due to spoilage of inventory in cold storage, and appellants admitted that they did not directly advise the agent of any special insurance needs in this regard. But the record contains testimony that appellants did express a desire to be fully insured, questioning whether “everything” was covered and specifically inquiring about acts of God; that the agent repeatedly advised appellants that the insurance proposal contained all the coverage they needed; and that in accepting the proposal appellants relied upon the agent’s expertise and assurances that the policy would provide full coverage.
When an insured reasonably relies upon an agent’s claimed expertise and advice, liability may be based upon the agent’s negligent failure to properly advise the insured as to coverage. See Seascape of Hickory Point Condominium Association v. Associated Insurance Services, 443 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). And a misrepresentation by the agent might warrant an estoppel precluding the insurer from denying coverage. See Crown Life Insurance Co. v. McBride, 517 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1987); Peninsular Life Insurance Co. v. Wade, 425 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). In the present case appellants presented a factual predicate for their claim, and the existence of these issues of material fact precludes summary judgment. See Aloffv. Neff-Harmon, Inc., 463 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Adams v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 574 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…able skill and diligence, and liability may result from a negligent failure to obtain coverage which is specifically requested or clearly warranted by the insured’s expressed needs.” Warehouse Foods, Inc. v. Corporate Risk Management Services, Inc., 530 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). This general duty requires the agent to exercise due care in correctly advising the insured of the existence and availability of particular insurance, including the availability and desirability of obtaining higher limits, depen…1 / 2
-
The Travelers Ins. Co. v. D.J. Wells, Jr., 633 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…529 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Times Publishing 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.…
-
Newbern v. Mansbach, 777 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…otified appellants of this information before closing, and at closing Hunnicutt did not provide the promised insurance. The question of Hunnicutt’s negligence presents issues of material fact. See Warehouse Foods v. Corporate Risk Management Servs., 530 So. 2d 422, 423 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In addition, to the extent the trial court found that appellants did not establish damages because they have not suffered flood damage and have not purchased private flood insurance, we reverse. Appellants presented evidenc…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crown Life Ins. Co. v. McBRIDE, 517 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1987)
- Dude Emshwiller v. State, 443 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Aloff v. Neff-Harmon, Inc., 463 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Peninsular Life Ins. Co. v. Wade, 425 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Sheridan v. Greenberg, 391 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Caplan v. Logan S. LA Chance & Chicago Ins. Co., 219 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Erwin Hunter v. State, 391 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)