T & R STORE FIXTURES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
TRAVELERS 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 company is not liable for premiums misappropriated by a broker merely because it accepted prior premium payments from the broker, as brokers act as agents of the insured, not the insurer.
An insurer's acceptance of prior premium payments from a broker does not create actual or apparent authority in the broker to collect premiums as the insurer's agent, and the insured remains liable for premiums the broker misappropriated.
[1] An insurer's acceptance of premium payments transmitted by a broker does not establish that the broker possessed actual or apparent authority to collect premiums as the i…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT & R Store Fixtures paid premiums to its insurance broker, who misappropriated the funds before remitting them to Travelers Insurance Company. Travel…
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 Actual Authority Of Agent cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
There is no evidence that the insurance company in this case took any action to lead the insured to believe that the latter’s broker had actual or apparent authority to collect premiums as an agent of the carrier. Compare Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S. v. Mittelhauser, 130 Fla. 794, 178 So. 559 (1938); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mason, 218 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1969).
Specifically, the mere acceptance by the insurer of prior premium payments transmitted by the broker on its checks does not have that legal effect. See 4 Couch on Insurance 2d § 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, summary judgment was correctly entered below that the insured remains liable to the carrier for premiums which the broker expropriated after receiving them from the insured but (obviously) before they were remitted to the company.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Almerico v. RLI Ins. Co., 716 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1998)…law that Kirkpatrick Insurance Agency was at all times acting as the agent for appellant [the insured] and was not acting within the real or apparent scope of authority from FMGA. Id. at 909. . Cf. T & R Store Fixtures, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 621 So. 2d 1388, 1389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (finding that "mere acceptance by the insurer of prior premium payments transmitted by the broker on its checks” did not have legal effect of signaling insured that its insurance broker had actual or apparent authority to co…
-
Amstar Ins. Co. v. Cadet, 862 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…e the policy. Almerico; Boulton. Some courts, including this one, refer to a broker as an “independent insurance agent.” Steele v. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co., 691 So. 2d 525, 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); T & R Store Fixtures, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 621 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); see also Straw v. Associated Doctors Health & Life, 728 So. 2d 354, 357 n. 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). [*740] As a general rule, an insurance broker acts as the agent of the insured. See Almerico; Boulton; Great Oaks Cas. Ins. Co. v.…
-
Boulton Agency, Inc. v. Phoenix Worldwide Indus., Inc., 698 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…roker is considered the agent of the insured rather than the insurer in matters connected with the procurement of insurance. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Yates, 368 So. 2d 634, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); T & R Store Fixtures, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 621 So. 2d 1388,1389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). After carefully considering the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel, and viewing same in the light most favorable to Travelers, the non-moving party, we find that evidence was introduced on which the jury could have det…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Quirk, 583 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Smith, 368 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States v. Mittelhauser, 130 Fla. 794 (Fla. 1937)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Anne T. Mason, 218 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Idania Rios v. Fla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 371 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Simpson v. State, 225 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1969)
- Tafero v. State, 225 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1969)
- R.P. v. State, 556 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Fla. E. Coast Props., Inc. v. Tifco, Inc., 556 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)