DANIEL WARREN AND JULIA WARREN, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, M & D GROUP, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A M & D INSURANCE, ERICA WEINBERG AND SALLY SCHULTZ, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their negligent misrepresentation claim against Dairyland Insurance Company. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action and that the exhibits attached did not expressly negate the allegations, making dismissal at the pleading stage premature.
The court held that the second amended complaint states a valid cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. Although the exhibits did not clearly demonstrate Dairyland was the primary insurance carrier, they did not expressly negate this allegation or the alleged agency relationship, making dismissal at the pleading stage premature and improper.
[1] A complaint may be dismissed based on attached exhibits only if the plain language of the exhibits expressly negates or contradicts the allegations of the complaint.
[2] A cause of action for negligent misrepresentation may be stated when an agent makes representations that cause detrimental reliance.
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“If an exhibit attached to a complaint negates the pleader's cause of action, the plain language of the document will control and may be the basis for a motion to dismiss.”
Establishes the legal standard for when exhibits can support dismissal at the pleading stage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Daniel and Julia Warren claimed entitlement to uninsured motorist coverage from Dairyland Insurance based on alleged negligent misrepresent…
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 Evidentiary Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1388] PARIENTE, Judge.
Plaintiffs, Daniel Warren and Julia Warren (plaintiffs), appeal the dismissal with prejudice of their second amended complaint against defendant Dairyland Insurance Company (Dairyland). Because the second amended complaint states a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation and because the exhibits attached to the second amended complaint do not expressly negate or contradict the allegations of the second amended complaint, we reverse the final order of dismissal in favor of Dairyland.
Plaintiffs claim entitlement to uninsured motorist coverage from Dairyland as a result of negligent misrepresentations made by defendant M & D Insurance, an insurance agency alleged to be Dairyland’s agent. Dairyland asserts that at no time did it issue any liability policy to plaintiffs. It also asserts that certain exhibits attached to the complaint demonstrate that Dairyland had been erroneously listed as primary insurance carrier on other exhibits attached to the complaint. While not disputing Dairyland’s assertions, it is premature at the pleading stage to make that evidentiary determination.
If an exhibit attached to a complaint negates the pleader’s cause of action, the plain language of the document will control and may be the basis for a motion to dismiss. See Buck v. Kent Sec. of Broward, 638 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Ginsberg v. Lennar Florida Holdings, Inc., 645 So. 2d 490, 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 659 So. 2d 272 (Fla.1995); Harry Pepper & Assocs., Inc. v. Lasseter, 247 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 252 So. 2d 797 (Fla.1971); Franz Tractor Co. v. J.I. Case Co., 566 So. 2d 524, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In this case, however, although the exhibits attached to the complaint do not clearly show that Dairyland was the primary insurance carrier, neither do the exhibits expressly negate this allegation or any other allegations of the complaint. If Dairyland had issued a liability policy and its agent had improperly explained uninsured motorist coverage to plaintiffs, Dairyland could be liable for uninsured motorist coverage equal to the liability limits. See Glynn v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 578 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Russell, 527 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
Alternatively, Dairyland could be vicariously liable for the negligent misrepresentations if the insurance agency were acting as agent for Dairyland at the time of its dealings with plaintiffs and if plaintiffs detrimentally relied upon the agent’s representations. See Martin v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 557 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Plaintiffs allege the existence of an agency relationship between Dairyland and M & D Insurance in their second amended complaint. None of the exhibits attached to the complaint negate or contradict this allegation.
While it may be that Dairyland has absolutely no connection with this transaction, this determination cannot be made at the initial pleading stage in this case. We are bound to consider the four corners of the complaint, together with the exhibits, and accept all well-pleaded allegations as true. See Sovran Bank, N.A. v. Parsons, 547 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Martin.
We emphasize that our decision addresses only the adequacy of the pleadings and not the potential evidentiary underpinnings for the claim. If the claim is totally without factual support because Dairyland has no connection with the transaction, this should properly be disposed of by summary judgment. However, this record does not allow us to make that determination.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 2001)…surer and an agent when a coverage dispute arises. See, e.g., McLeod v. Barber, 764 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Daniel v. Florida Residential Prop. & Cas. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, 718 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Warren v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 662 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Time Ins. Co. v. Neumann, 634 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Russell v. Frank H. Furman, Inc., 629 So. 2d 297, 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Hardy Equip. Co. v. Travis Cosby & Assocs., 530 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Wolfe v. Ae…
-
Karem Elena Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co., 930 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…sult of these negligent misrepresentations,” injury resulted. Based upon these allegations, we conclude that the Complaint sufficiently pleads a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation against the appellees. See Warren v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 662 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(holding that insurer can be held liable for the negligent misrepresentations made by insurance agent of insurer; determination of whether insurance agent is agent of insurer “cannot be made at the initial pleading stage”). COUNT…
-
Hollywood Lakes Section Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. City OF Hollywood, 676 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…[1996 WL 134304] (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 27, 1996). However, if the attached exhibits negated the allegations of the complaint, “the plain language of the document will control and may be the basis for a motion to dismiss.” Warren v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 662 So. 2d 1387, 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Appellants’ complaint was an impermissible collateral attack on the 1981 and 1994 judgments. The “declaratory decree statute is no substitute for established procedure for review of final judgments or decrees. Nor is it a…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Morton L. Ginsberg & MLG Props., Inc. v. Lennar Fla. Holdings, 645 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Harry Pepper & Assocs., Inc. v. Harley O. Al Lasseter, Sr., 247 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Staats v. Adams, 252 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1971)
- Harry Pepper & Assocs., Inc. v. Harley O. "Al" Lasseter, Sr., 252 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1971)
- Sovran Bank, N.A. v. Parsons, 547 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Martin v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 557 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Franz Tractor Co. v. J.I. Case Co., 566 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Milisav Kutlesic v. Guardianship OF Katia Kutlesic, 566 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Glynn v. NEW Hampshire Ins. Co. & Bonina Ins., Inc., 578 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- The Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Millicent Russell and the Estate of Richard Russell, 527 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)