POE & ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ESTATE OF RONALD VOGLER, DECEASED, RONALD W. VOGLER, P.A., AND LEOPOLDO HERNANDEZ, 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.
Poe & Associates, an insurance agent, appealed a summary judgment finding it liable for unauthorized cancellation of professional liability insurance coverage for a deceased attorney and his professional association. The court affirmed, holding that an insurance agent owes its principal a duty of high fidelity and cannot act on instructions from clerical staff when the principal has died and the policy extends coverage to the executor or administrator.
An insurance agent owes its principal a duty of high fidelity and may not act without or beyond its authority. Upon learning of the insured's death, Poe should have waited for instructions from the estate rather than acting on instructions from clerical staff who lacked authority to direct the agent. Therefore, Poe's cancellation of the insurance policy was improper.
[1] An insurance agent owes its principal the obligation of high fidelity and may not act without or beyond its authority.
[2] An insurance agent, upon learning of the insured's death, should await instructions from the estate's representative rather than acting on instructions from clerical staf…
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 has long been well settled that an agent owes his principal the obligation of high fidelity, and that he may not proceed without or beyond his authority.”
Establishes the fundamental legal duty owed by Poe to its principal, which Poe violated by acting on clerical staff instructions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonald Vogler, an attorney, died while covered by professional liability insurance through Pacific Employers Insurance Company. Poe & Associates was t…
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 Legal Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Poe & Associates, Inc., [Poe] appeals a final summary judgment declaring it liable to Leopoldo and Merida Hernandez [collectively “Hernandez”] for its unauthorized cancellation of insurance coverage for Ronald W. Vogler [Vogler] and Ronald W. Vo-gler, P.A. [P.A.]. We affirm.
Hernandez sued Vogler’s professional association and his estate for damages arising from Vogler’s alleged legal malpractice. Pacific Employers Insurance Company [Pacific], Vogler’s malpractice insurance carrier, was joined as a party because it had cancelled Vogler’s coverage without first ascertaining whether any claims were pending against Vogler. Pacific moved for summary judgment, attaching in support of the motion a copy of a letter it had received from Poe, the P.A.’s insurance agent, requesting cancellation of the policy.
The trial court granted summary judgment. As a consequence, Hernandez moved to add Poe as a defendant on the ground that Poe, as insurance agent for Vogler and the P.A., had cancelled the coverage without the personal representative’s permission, when it knew, or should have known, of Hernandez’s claim. Poe claimed that it acted on the instructions of a bookkeeper or secretary. The malpractice claim proceeded to trial and culminated in the entry of' final judgment against the P.A. and Vogler’s estate. The court resolved Hernandez’s claim against Poe, severed . at Poe’s request, by the entry of a final summary judgment in favor of Hernandez. Poe appeals.
“It has long been well settled that an agent owes his principal the obligation of high fidelity, and that he may not proceed without or beyond his authority.” Crawford v. DiMicco, 216 So. 2d 769, 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Johnston, 431 So. 2d 1018, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Poe was Vogler’s insurance agent, and Vogler and the P.A. were the named insureds. In view of the policy provision extending coverage until the discharge of the insured’s executor or administrator, Poe, upon learning of Vo-gler’s death, should have waited for instructions from the estate; it should not have acted on the instructions of Vogler’s clerical staff, as neither the bookkeeper nor the secretary had authority to issue instructions to Poe.
Thus, the trial court correctly ruled that Poe should not have cancelled the insurance policy. Under the circumstances of this case, where the material facts were undisputed, summary judgment was appropriate. Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985); Holt v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Paul v. Brumby, 548 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Braidi Trading Co. v. Anthony R. Abraham Enterprises, Inc., 469 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Mejiah v. Rodriguez, 342 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Poe’s remaining points on appeal were not raised in the trial court and may not be considered here for the first time in an appeal. Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla.1981); Ashley v. Ocean Roc Motel, Inc., 518 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 528 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1988); Abrams v. Paul, 453 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stalley v. Transitional Hosps. Corp. OF Tampa, Inc., 44 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…aco Bell of Cal. v. Zappone, 324 So. 2d 121, 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Smith, 498 So. 2d at 449. Moreover, the scope of the agent’s authority is limited to what the principal has authorized the agent to do. See Poe & Assocs., Inc. v. Estate of Vogler, 559 So. 2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In this case, there is no dispute that Roderic did not sign the arbitration agreement himself. In addition, there is no dispute that JoAnne did not have a power of attorney or other written consent authorizing her to act a…
-
Fredy D. Osorio v. State Farm Bank, 746 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2014)…Bell of Cal. v. Zappone, 324 So. 2d 121, 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Smith, 498 So. 2d at 449. Moreover, the scope of the agent’s authority is limited to what the principal has authorized the agent to do. See Poe & Assocs., Inc. v. Estate of Vogler, 559 So. 2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Stalley v. Transitional Hosps. Corp. of Tampa, Inc., 44 So. 3d 627, 630 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.2010). As applied to Osorio’s case, the key facts regarding agency are clearly in dispute. Betancourt and Osorio testified in t…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Chirogianis v. Anderson, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1981)
- Abrams v. Paul, 453 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Crawford v. DiMICCO, 216 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Mejiah v. Olivio Rodriguez & Integon Indem. Corp., 342 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Ashley v. Ocean ROC Motel, Inc., 518 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Dash v. Marx, 469 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Braidi Trading Co. v. Anthony R. Abraham Enters., Inc., 469 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Jorgensen v. Volusia Cnty., 431 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)