Chesapeake House, Inc. v. Lee Mutual Insurance Agency, Inc.
239 So. 2d 602
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 11, 1970·No. No. 69-572·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
An insurance broker is not, as a matter of law, the insured’s agent for receipt of premium refund upon cancellation. Hermann v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 1885, 100 N.Y. 411, 3 N.E. 341. Whether the broker is agent as a matter of fact is not determined by the record on which summary judgment was entered. Agency, pleaded here, is yet to be determined. Miller v. Chase & Co., 1924, 88 Fla. 500, 102 So. 553. See 44 C.J.S. Insurance § 168; 44 Am.Jur.2d Insurance § 151 et seq.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Chesapeake House, Inc. v. Lee Mutual Insurance Agency, Inc., 239 So. 2d 602 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).
239 So. 2d 602 (Chesapeake House, Inc. v. Lee Mutual Insurance Agency, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McFarling v. Demco, Inc.
1976 OK 15 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1976)
Weeki Wachee Orchid Gardens v. FLORIDA INLAND TH.
239 So. 2d 602 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)