RAMONA JANET CORRALES
v.
DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
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 party who has the capacity and opportunity to read a contract but signs it without reading it cannot avoid the contract on the ground of mistake absent special circumstances.
[1] A party who has the capacity and opportunity to read a contract is not excused from its terms merely because the party failed to read it, absent special circumstances.
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“Florida law has never excused a party from a contract simply because it failed to read the contract terms.”
Rodriguez v. Responsive Auto Ins. Co., cited by the court as controlling precedent
Ramona Janet Corrales appealed a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County involving Direct General Insurance Company. The case concerned whether Co…
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 Insurance Application cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed April 24, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-521 Lower Tribunal No. 22-6262
________________
Ramona Janet Corrales,
Appellant,
vs.
Direct General Insurance Company, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Christian Carrazana, P.A., and Christian Carrazana, for appellant. McFarlane Law, McFarlane Dolan & Prince, and William J. McFarlane, III, and Michael K. Mittelmark (Coral Springs), for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Rodriguez v. Responsive Auto Ins. Co., 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1557 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 9, 2023) (“Florida law has never excused a party from a contract simply because it failed to read the contract terms.” (quoting Paul Gottlieb & Co., Inc. v. Alps S. Corp., 985 So. 2d 1, 7 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2007))); All Fla. Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508, 510-11 (Fla. 1956) (“The courts appear to be unanimous in holding that a person who, having the capacity and an opportunity to read a contract, is not misled as to its contents and who sustains no confidential relationship to the other party cannot avoid the contract on the ground of mistake if he signs it without reading it, at least in the absence of special circumstances excusing his failure to read it.”); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Salgado, 22 So. 3d 594, 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“Florida law indeed gives an insurer the unilateral right to rescind its insurance policy on the basis of misrepresentation in the application of insurance.” (quoting Gonzalez v. Eagle Ins. Co., 948 So. 2d 1,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- ALL Fla. Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1956)
- Gonzalez v. Eagle Ins. Co., 948 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Salgado, 22 So. 3d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Paul Gottlieb & Co., Inc. v. Alps S. Corp., 985 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)