LOUIS CAPLAN AND EDWARD BONIESKI, D/B/A R. A. RAYMOND INSURANCE AGENCY, APPELLANTS,
v.
LOGAN S. LA CHANCE AND CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, 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.
This case involves insurance agents appealing a jury verdict against them for negligence in failing to procure the correct insurance coverage. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's decision.
Yes, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. The agent's own testimony indicated awareness of the vessel's intended use for charter parties and a failure to obtain the correct insurance.
“It is apparent from the agent's own testimony that he was aware that the vessel in question was to be used for charter parties and he failed to obtain the proper insurance coverage.”
This quote establishes the key piece of evidence the court relied on to find sufficient evidence for the jury's verdict.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceInsurance agents (appellants) were sued by their clients (appellees) for negligence. The clients alleged that the agents failed to obtain the proper i…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants, insurance agents, appeal from an adverse jury verdict and final judgment thereon, in an action charging them with negligence in failing to procure the proper coverage requested by the insured.
This is a recognized cause of action. See: Durbin Paper Stock Co. v. Watson-David Insurance Co., Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 34; Cat’N Fiddle, Inc. v. Century Insurance Co., Fla.App. 1967, 200 So.2d 208, rev. on other grounds Fla.1968, 213 So. 2d 701; 16 Appleman’s Insurance Law and Practice, §§ 8831, 8843; 3 Couch on Insurance (2d), § 25:46; Anno. 29 A.L.R.2d 171. The only question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. It is apparent from the agent’s own testimony that he was aware that the vessel in question was to be used for charter parties and he failed to obtain the proper insurance coverage. The jury having resolved the issues in favor of the insured and there being evidence in the record to support its verdict, this court should not interfere with same. Bowser v. Harder, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 752; State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Hicks, Fla. App. 1966, 184 So.2d 685; Leggett v. Carter, Fla.App. 1968, 211 So.2d 237.
Therefore, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Karem Elena Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co., 930 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…or breach of contract or negligence.”); Bennett v. Berk, 400 So. 2d 484, 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)(“An insurance broker may be liable for damages where there is an agreement to procure insurance and a negligent failure to do so.”); Caplan v. La Chance, 219 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)(holding that an insurance .agent’s negligence in failing to procure the proper insurance coverage requested by the insured is a recognized cause of action). THE REMAINING COUNTS We conclude that the remaining counts also state a…
-
Charles "Bebe" Rebozo v. Royal Indem. Co. & Baldwin Ins. Agency, Inc., 369 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…dress an injury sustained direct [*646] ly by him, and which is separate and distinct from that sustained by other stockholders . . . ”) . See n. 1, supra. . Auto Mut. Indemnity Co. v. Shaw, 134 Fla. 815, 184 So. 852 (1938). . Caplan v. LaChance, 219 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), and authorities cited. . Of course, this case 'was decided after the rendition of the judgment below. . Our disposition makes it unnecessary to consider the other arguments advanced in support of Rebozo’s contention that he has…
-
Nicholis v. Klonis and Mary E. Klonis, 436 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)….g., First National Ins. Agency v. Leesburg Transfer & Storage, 139 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); Cat ’n Fiddle v. Century Ins. Co., 200 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), vacated in part on other grounds, 213 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1968); Caplan v. LaChance, 219 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); deMarlor v. Foley Carter Ins. Co., 386 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Duncanson v. Service First, Inc., 157 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Sheridan v. Greenberg, 391 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The damages recoverable from the…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- CAT 'N Fiddle, Inc. v. The Century Ins. Co., 213 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1968)
- CAT 'N Fiddle, Inc. v. The Century Ins. Co., 200 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Durbin Paper Stock Co., Inc. v. Watson-David Ins. Co., Inc., 167 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Bowser v. Harder, 98 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hicks, 184 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Leggett v. Carter, 211 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)