FLORIDA EAST COAST PROPERTIES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
TIFCO, INC., APPELLEE
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.
FECP appeals a summary judgment in favor of Tifco, an insurance premium finance company, on a claim for unpaid installments under a financing agreement. The court affirms, holding that the insurance broker was not Tifco's agent, so the broker's error in procuring a seven-month policy instead of a one-year policy cannot serve as a defense to FECP's payment obligation.
The broker was not Tifco's agent for purposes of the premium financing agreement. Possession of blank forms and past business dealings are insufficient to establish an agency relationship. Since the broker acted as FECP's agent, Tifco's disbursement to the broker constituted disbursement to FECP, and FECP remains obligated to repay regardless of the broker's error.
[1] Possession of blank forms and past or present transaction of business are insufficient to establish an agency relationship for purposes of a premium financing agreement.
[2] A premium finance company's disbursement of loan proceeds to an insurance broker, who is acting as the insured's agent, constitutes disbursement to the insured.
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“Possession of blank forms and past or present transaction of business are not enough to make the broker Tifco's agent for purposes of the premium financing agreement.”
Establishes the legal standard that mere possession of forms and past dealings are insufficient to establish an agency relationship between the broker and Tifco.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFECP obtained property insurance through a broker, who quoted a $1.1 million annual premium and arranged financing through Tifco. FECP paid one-fourth…
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 Imputed Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Florida East Coast Properties, Inc. (“FECP”) appeals a summary final judgment in favor of Tifco, Inc. on Tifco’s claim for unpaid installments under an insurance premium financing agreement. We affirm.
FECP obtained insurance for various of its properties through a broker. The broker quoted a premium of $1.1 million for one year’s coverage. The broker also arranged premium financing through Tifco. Under this arrangement, FECP advanced one-fourth of the premium as a down payment, and Tifco financed the remainder, with monthly installments to be paid to Tifco by FECP in the first nine months under the policy. The policy served as security for the loan; in the event FECP defaulted on an installment, Tifco could by power of attorney cancel the policy and obtain a refund of the unearned premium. Tifco had done business with the broker in the past, and the broker maintained a supply of Tifco’s forms in his office.
After the transaction closed, Tifco disbursed the loan proceeds to the broker, who forwarded the premium amounts to the insurers. Unbeknownst to FECP and Tifco, the broker had actually procured a policy for seven months, not one year. When this discrepancy came to light, and a preliminary negotiation between FECP and the broker for an adjustment proved unsuccessful, FECP withheld the last three installments due Tifco.
The principal question raised is whether the broker was Tifco’s agent, so that the broker’s alleged wrongdoing would be imputed to Tifco and serve as a defense to Tifco’s claim for payment. It is undisputed that the broker served as FECP’s agent for the purpose of procuring the insurance policies. It is true, as FECP contends, that in some circumstances a broker has been found to serve in a dual agency capacity. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Lyons, 122 Fla. 346, 349, 165 So. 351, 353 (1936); see National Premium Budget Plan Corp. v. LaSalle Casualty Co., 81 Ill.App.2d 466, 225 N.E. 2d 400, 402-04 (1967) (agent of insurance company for delivery of policy was the designated agent for the premium finance company in the separate and distinct premium financing transaction). In the present case, however, the record does not contain evidence which would raise a triable issue as to whether the broker was Tifco’s agent. Possession of blank forms and past or present transaction of business are not enough to make the broker Tifco’s agent for purposes of the premium financing agreement. See AMI Insurance Agency v. Elie, 394 So. 2d 1061, 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Since the broker acted as FECP’s agent, Tifco’s disbursement of the loan proceeds to the broker constituted disbursement to FECP. FECP is obliged to repay. In the absence of an agency relationship, the alleged wrongdoing of the broker cannot be imputed to Tifco, nor can the dispute over the policy term serve as a defense to what is in essence a dispute between lender and borrower. With regard to the documentary stamp issue, we conclude that the contract on which the suit is predicated is that dated December 3, 1986, the enforcement of which is not barred by section 201.08, Florida Statutes (1987).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T & R Store Fixtures, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 621 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…26A:59 (1984); 43 Am.Jur.2d Insurance § 884 (1982). The ordinary rule that an independent agent or broker acts on behalf of the insured, see Travelers Ins. Co. v. Quirk, 583 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.1991); Florida East Coast Properties, Inc. v. Tifco, Inc., 556 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Rios v. Florida Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 371 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Yates, 368 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 351 (Fla.1979), therefore applies and, on this ground, summa…
-
Surendra K. Sirpal and Poonam Sirpal v. Jefferson Nat'l Bank, 561 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…. Affirmed. See and compare Barnett Bank of West Florida v. Hooper, 498 So. 2d 923 (Fla.1986); Industrial Insurance Company of New Jersey v. First National Bank of Miami, 57 So. 2d 23 (Fla.1952); Florida East Coast Properties, Inc. v. Tifco, Inc., 556 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Dines v. Ultimo, 532 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Smith v. American Automobile Insurance Company, 498 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Aerovías Panama S.A. v. Air Carrier Engine Service, Inc., 195 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967);…
Authorities Cited
- AMI Ins. Agency v. Elie, 394 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Iola v. Brumick v. Belva E. Morris, 122 Fla. 236 (Fla. 1935)
- Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Martha S. Lyons (sometimes known as Martha Lyons, 122 Fla. 346 (Fla. 1936)