JAMES DODICH, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., ET AL., 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.
Court affirmed dismissal of individual salesman Navarro as defendant in misrepresentation claim but reversed attorney's fees awards against insurers under section 57.105 because claims, though incorrect, were not frivolous.
A principal is deemed disclosed when the contracting party knows the agent's identity, and section 57.105 attorney's fees are improper when claims against defendants, though ultimately unsuccessful, are not so insubstantial as to be frivolous.
[1] When a contracting party knows the identity of an agent, the principal is deemed disclosed and the agent may be dismissed from suit for misrepresentation claims arising f…
[2] Section 57.105 attorney's fees are not warranted merely because a claim ultimately fails; fees require that the claims be so insubstantial as to be frivolous or without r…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“[I]f the contracting party knows the identity of the principal for whom the agent purports to act, the principal is deemed to be disclosed”
Explaining the disclosed principal doctrine in support of dismissing the individual agent
Appellants brought a misrepresentation claim against a vessel broker, its employee Navarro, and insurance company sureties on bonds posted under the Y…
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 Attorney'S Fees As Sanction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants complain of alleged misrepresentation in the sale by a broker and its employee Navarro of a vessel owned by Benitez. On the appeals before us we (a) affirm the dismissal of the salesman Navarro as a party defendant, see Hotels of Key Largo, Inc. v. RHI Hotels, Inc., 694 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), review denied, 700 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1997); Tevini v. Roscioli Yacht Sales, Inc., 597 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), review denied, 613 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1993); Van D. Costas, Inc. v. Rosenberg, 432 So. 2d 656, 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)(“[I]f the contracting party knows the identity of the principal for whom the agent purports to act, the principal is deemed to be disclosed”), but (b) reverse the awards of section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1997), attorney’s fees assessed in favor of Washington International Insurance Company and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, the sureties on bonds posted pursuant to the Yacht and Ship Brokers’ Act, Chapter 326, Florida Statutes (1997), on the ground that, while incorrect, the claims against them were not so unsubstantial as to justify those fees. See Keyes Co. v. Friedes, 497 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos. v. Rojas, 447 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hotels OF KEY Largo, Inc. v. RHI Hotels, Inc., 694 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- VAN D. Costas, Inc. v. Rosenberg, 432 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Helmut R. Tevini v. Roscioli Yacht Sales, Inc., 597 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos. v. Ada Rojas, 447 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- The Keyes Co. v. Friedes, 497 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)