KARLA RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
An insurance agent's actions in procuring coverage and rejecting uninsured motorist coverage bind the insurer, and the insurer cannot escape liability by claiming the agent acted solely on behalf of the insured.
[1] An insured's deposition testimony that an insurance agent prevented her from reading policy forms and assured her of full coverage, despite later learning she had rejecte…
[2] For purposes of rejecting uninsured motorist coverage, an insurance agent licensed to represent an insurer is considered the agent of the insurer, not a broker for the in…
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 intelligenceAn insured requested full coverage from an insurance agent who allegedly prevented her from reading the forms and assured her she had full coverage. 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 Duty To Disclose cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the summary final judgment entered in favor of the insurer based on the following analysis.
First, the appellant insured’s deposition testimony demonstrates that at the time she purchased her new automobile, she was directed to an insurance agent from whom she requested all available coverage. Appellant stated that the insurance agent who assisted her in signing the forms to obtain coverage precluded her from reading the forms she was signing and at the same time assured her that by signing the papers he presented to her she was getting full coverage. Appellant further stated that it was not until after she was involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist that she learned the agent had given her a form to sign rejecting uninsured motorist coverage. This testimony, if believed by a jury, is sufficient under the allegations to entitle the insured to relief. Vasquez v. Bankers Ins. Co., 502 So. 2d 894 (Fla.1987); White v. Allstate Ins. Co., 530 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), review denied, 539 So. 2d 476 (Fla.1989).
Second, we agree with Judge Alten-bernd’s analysis in Quirk v. Anthony, 563 So. 2d 710, 715-16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), holding that for purposes of obtaining a proper rejection of uninsured motorist coverage, an “independent” agent is the agent of the insurer he or she is licensed to represent. The agent is not a broker for the insured under such circumstances. Thus, the trial court erred in holding that any action regarding the insurance application and uninsured motorist coverage rejection lies only against the insurance agent and not the insurer itself.
Finally, we note that even though the effective date of coverage was July 30, 1988, the insured did not receive the policy documents detailing the coverage she had in fact received until after October 31, 1988, the date of-her accident. This late delivery presents a question as to whether the insured was improperly precluded from learning prior to the accident that her vehicle was not in fact fully covered as she intended.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glynn v. NEW Hampshire Ins. Co. & Bonina Ins., Inc., 578 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…ensed with the state to write for a company, even [*37] though also a licensed agent for other companies, is the company’s agent for the purpose of obtaining a rejection of uninsured motorist coverage. See also Rodriguez v. American United Ins. Co., 570 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). While recognizing that the trial court did not have the benefit of these recent opinions, we conclude that the trial court erred in finding that an independent insurance agent may not be the agent of the insurance company for t…
-
Sayed Muhammed v. Allstate Ins. Co., 582 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…wing rejection of uninsured motorist coverage. On the undisputed facts presented, such a rejection was established below as a matter of law under Vasquez v. Bankers Ins. Co., 502 So. 2d 894 (Fla.1987). See also Rodriguez v. American United Ins. Co., 570 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The summary judgment entered below in favor of the carrier is therefore Affirmed.…
-
Johnson v. Stanley White Ins. & State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 684 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…he signature on such a form can be refuted in extraordinary cases involving fraud, forgery, or trickery. White v. Allstate Ins. Co., 530 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), review denied, 539 So. 2d 476 (Fla.1989); Rodriguez v. American United Ins. Co., 570 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). State Farm and Stanley White have not conclusively established on this record that the Johnsons cannot prevail on their claim. See Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We express no opinion on the outcome in this…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Quirk v. Anthony, 563 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Gustav Thorarinsson v. Robert F. Wilson, Inc., 563 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Vasquez v. Bankers Ins. Co., 502 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1987)
- White v. Allstate Ins. Co., 530 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)