Ospina v. Security National Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ospina v. Security National Insurance

739 So. 2d 633, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8670, 1999 WL 436381

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 30, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2310

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 739 So. 2d 633 (Ospina v. Security National 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

Ospina v. Security National Insurance, 739 So. 2d 633, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8670, 1999 WL 436381 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the underlying case, the trial court properly entered final summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Security National Insurance Company, as a matter of law. The law is well-settled that an insurance broker is generally the agent of the insured. Almerico v. RLI Ins. Co., 716 So.2d 774 (Fla.1998). Further, in the instant case, there was no record evidence that the insurance company took any action to lead the insured to believe that the insurance broker had actual or apparent authority as an agent of the carrier. Ruiz v. Fortune Ins. Co., 677 So.2d 1336, 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); T & R Store Fixtures, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 621 So.2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). As such, notice to the insurance broker of the insured’s acquisition of a replacement vehicle was insufficient to impute knowledge to the carrier.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the underlying case, the trial court properly entered final summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Security National Insurance Company, as a matter of law. The law is well-settled that an insurance broker is generally the agent of the insured. Almerico v. RLI Ins. Co., 716 So.2d 774 (Fla.1998). Further, in the instant case, there was no record evidence that the insurance company took any action to lead the insured to believe that the insurance broker had actual or apparent authority as an agent of the carrier. Ruiz v. Fortune Ins. Co., 677 So.2d 1336, 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); T & R Store Fixtures, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 621 So.2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). As such, notice to the insurance broker of the insured’s acquisition of a replacement vehicle was insufficient to impute knowledge to the carrier.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

739 So. 2d 633, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8670, 1999 WL 436381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ospina-v-security-national-insurance-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack