WESTERN SURETY COMPANY
v.
MANHEIM REMARKETING, INC.
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.
A motor vehicle auction operator is a person in a wholesale transaction who suffered a loss as a result of a dealer's failure to comply with the conditions of a written contract and is therefore entitled to recover under the bond.
[1] A motor vehicle auction operator is a person in a wholesale transaction entitled to recover under a dealer bond for losses resulting from a dealer's failure to comply wit…
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 intelligence“was a 'person in a wholesale transaction who suffered a loss as a result of the failure of the dealer to comply with the conditions of its written contract' entitled to recover under the bond”
The court cited Dealers Ins. Co., Inc. v. Centennial Cas. Co., 644 So. 2d 571, 572-73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), establishing the standard for bond recovery by motor vehicle auction operators.
Western Surety Company appealed a judgment in favor of Manheim Remarketing, Inc., a motor vehicle auction operator, regarding recovery under a dealer …
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.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2025-3170 Lower Tribunal No. 2024-CA-001492
WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, Appellant, v. MANHEIM REMARKETING, INC., Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County. Jennifer A. Swenson, Judge.
November 6, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Dealers Ins. Co., Inc. v. Centennial Cas. Co., 644 So. 2d 571, 572-73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (holding motor vehicle auction operator “was a 'person in a wholesale transaction who suffered a loss as a result of the failure of the dealer to comply with the conditions of its written contract' entitled to recover under the bond" (footnote omitted)), disapproved of on other grounds, Nichols v. Preferred Nat'l Ins. Co., 704 So. 2d 1371, 1373-74 (Fla. 1997); see also Dealers Ins. Co., Inc. v. Fla. Auto Auction of Orlando, 646 So. 2d 299 (Mem.) (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (“The legal issues in this case are indistinguishable from those in Dealers Insurance
Company v. Centennial Casualty Co., 644 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, . . . .").
MIZE, BROWNLEE and KAMOUTSAS, JJ., concur.
Elizabeth A. Pearce and Matthew G. Davis, of Paskert Divers Thompson, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Val Leppert and Ross Linzer, of King & Spalding LLP, Miami, for Appellee.
Zoe Beiner, of King & Spalding LLP, Washington, D.C., Pro Hac Vice, for Appellee.