Dodich v. Washington International Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dodich v. Washington International Insurance

733 So. 2d 601, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7888

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1999

DocketNos. 98-2829, 98-2761 and 98-2755

StatusPublished

This text of 733 So. 2d 601 (Dodich v. Washington International Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dodich v. Washington International Insurance, 733 So. 2d 601, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7888 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants complain of alleged misrepresentation in the sale by a broker and its employee Navarro of a vessel owned by Benitez. On the appeals before us we (a) affirm the dismissal of the salesman Navarro as a party defendant, see Hotels of Key Largo, Inc. v. RHI Hotels, Inc., 694 So.2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), review denied, 700 So.2d 685 (Fla.1997); Tevini v. Roscioli Yacht Sales, Inc., 597 So.2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), review denied, 613 So.2d 9 (Fla.1993); Van D. Costas, Inc. v. Rosenberg, 432 So.2d 656, 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)(“[I]f the contracting party knows the identity of the principal for whom the agent purports to act, the principal is deemed to be disclosed”), but (b) reverse the awards of section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1997), attorney’s fees assessed in favor of Washington International Insurance Company and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, the sureties on bonds posted pursuant to the Yacht and Ship Brokers’ Act, Chapter 326, Florida Statutes (1997), on the ground that, while incorrect, the claims against them were not so unsubstantial as to justify those fees. See Keyes Co. v. Friedes, 497 So.2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos. v. Rojas, 447 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellants complain of alleged misrepresentation in the sale by a broker and its employee Navarro of a vessel owned by Benitez. On the appeals before us we (a) affirm the dismissal of the salesman Navarro as a party defendant, see Hotels of Key Largo, Inc. v. RHI Hotels, Inc., 694 So.2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), review denied, 700 So.2d 685 (Fla.1997); Tevini v. Roscioli Yacht Sales, Inc., 597 So.2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), review denied, 613 So.2d 9 (Fla.1993); Van D. Costas, Inc. v. Rosenberg, 432 So.2d 656, 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)(“[I]f the contracting party knows the identity of the principal for whom the agent purports to act, the principal is deemed to be disclosed”), but (b) reverse the awards of section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1997), attorney’s fees assessed in favor of Washington International Insurance Company and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, the sureties on bonds posted pursuant to the Yacht and Ship Brokers’ Act, Chapter 326, Florida Statutes (1997), on the ground that, while incorrect, the claims against them were not so unsubstantial as to justify those fees. See Keyes Co. v. Friedes, 497 So.2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos. v. Rojas, 447 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

733 So. 2d 601, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodich-v-washington-international-insurance-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack