PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN GROSSI AND JUDY GROSSI, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed summary judgment for insureds, holding that an insured's spouse may act as the insured's agent to reject uninsured motorist coverage, creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the agent's authority.
An insured's spouse may act as the insured's agent to reject uninsured motorist coverage when the insured has accepted benefits from prior modifications made by the spouse without objection.
[1] An insured's acceptance of benefits from policy modifications made by a spouse without objection may establish the spouse's actual or apparent authority to make further m…
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 intelligenceJohn Grossi was the named insured on a Progressive insurance policy; his wife Judy was an additional driver. Over three years, Judy made numerous cove…
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 Estoppel By Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
Progressive American Insurance Company (“Progressive”) appeals a final summary judgment in favor of John and Judy Grossi. The underlying dispute involves Progressive’s denial of the Grossis’ claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist *791(“U.M.”) coverage following an automobile accident. John Grossi was the named insured and Judy Grossi was an additional driver under the policy. While the policy was in effect, over a three-year period, Judy Grossi made numerous coverage modifications to the policy, and John Gros-si reaped the benefits of those modifications with reduced premiums. After each change was made, John Grossi was sent a policy declaration reflecting the changes. He never challenged the authority of his wife to make any of the changes. One of the latest modifications was Judy Grossi’s rejection of U.M. coverage.
Essentially, this dispute centers on Judy Grossi’s authority to reject that coverage. Progressive argues that Judy Grossi acted as either her husband’s actual or apparent agent and, as an agent, had the authority to reject the U.M. coverage. In response, the Grossis argue, inter alia, that only John Grossi, as the named insured, could reject U.M. coverage and that Judy Grossi lacked actual or apparent authority to reject the coverage. We disagree that John Grossi could not reject U.M. coverage through an agent, specifically his wife. Ample evidence supports Progressive’s contention that Judy Grossi acted as her husband’s agent in modifying the coverage of the policy. At the very least, there are disputed issues of material fact.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORPY, C.J., LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.