IRENE SOKOLOFF, APPELLANT,
v.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY 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.
Irene Sokoloff appealed a summary judgment in favor of Travelers Insurance Company on negligence and breach of contract claims arising from her inability to obtain uninsured motorist coverage after a car accident. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Travelers owed no duty to the plaintiff because its contractual obligations under an agreement with the Florida Joint Underwriting Association ran only to the Association, not to individual insureds.
The court affirmed summary judgment for Travelers, holding that Travelers owed no contract duty to Sokoloff because its obligations under the agreement with the Florida Joint Underwriting Association ran solely to the Association, and that Travelers had no common law tort duty to Sokoloff. Even if such a duty arguably existed, any breach was not a proximate cause of Sokoloff's economic loss as a matter of law.
[1] An insurer is not legally responsible for the actions of a third party that is not its agent, even if that third party's negligence or fraud causes a loss to a potential…
[2] A contractual duty owed solely to a third party, such as an underwriting association, does not create a contractual duty to an individual insured who is not a party to th…
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“It is undisputed that InterAmerican Underwriters, Inc. was not the agent of the defendant Travelers, and, accordingly, Travelers was not legally responsible for InterAmerican's negligent, if not fraudulent, failure to remit the plaintiffs application for automobile accident insurance and premium checks to Travelers until after the plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident.”
Establishes that Travelers cannot be held liable for the intermediary's conduct because InterAmerican was not Travelers' agent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSokoloff applied for automobile accident insurance through InterAmerican Underwriters, Inc., an intermediary that was not Travelers' agent. InterAmeri…
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 Contractual Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff Irene Sokoloff from an adverse final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant Travelers Insurance Company in an action sounding in breach of contract and negligence. The sole point raised on appeal is that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment for the defendant on the negligence count. We disagree and affirm.
First, it is undisputed that InterAm-erican Underwriters, Inc. was not the agent of the defendant Travelers, and, accordingly, Travelers was not legally responsible for In-terAmerican’s negligent, if not fraudulent, failure to remit the plaintiffs application for automobile accident insurance and premium checks to Travelers until after the plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident, thereby depriving the plaintiff of uninsured motorist coverage for the subject accident.
Second, it is undisputed that Travelers’ contract duty, under an agreement with the Florida Joint Underwriting Association to notify the Association of any failure of InterAmerican to remit promptly any premiums collected on a Travelers’ insurance policy, was a duty owed solely to the Association. Indeed, the subject agreement expressly provided that the agreement was solely between Travelers and the Association and that no insured, such as the plaintiff, “shall have or acquire any rights by reason of the execution and delivery of this [ajgreement or the performance of any obligations or duties hereunder.” Consequently, the defendant Travelers breached no contract duty to the plaintiff.
Moreover, we conclude, contrary to the plaintiffs argument, that based on this agreement Travelers had no common law tort duty to the plaintiff of any kind — and, even if it arguably did, the defendant’s breach of this alleged duty was not, as a matter of law, a proximate cause of the plaintiffs economic loss in this case. See Greenberg v. Mount Sinai Medical Ctr. of Greater Miami, Inc., 629 So. 2d 252, 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Davids v. A.R.A. Servs., Inc., 572 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Gulfstar, Inc. v. Advance Mortgage Corp., 376 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 633 (Fla.1990).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jack J. Greenberg, M.D. v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. OF Greater Miami, Inc., 629 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Gulfstar, Inc. v. Advance Mortg. Corp., 376 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Davids v. A.R.A. Servs., Inc., 572 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)