From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ivey v. Hull & Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 14, 1984
458 So. 2d 439 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 84-377.

November 14, 1984.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Robert E. Beach, J.

Bonnie L. Earley Freeman of Chambers Salzman, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Maureen Emmet-Miller of Riden, Watson Goldstein, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellee.


Notwithstanding the well presented argument on behalf of plaintiff we affirm the trial court's judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict. Defendant had furnished to the insurance broker who dealt with plaintiff an insurance application blank containing the name of defendant as "Insurance Reinsurance Intermediaries." Under the facts of this case the broker did not thereby become an agent of defendant or have apparent authority from defendant to issue on behalf of defendant an automobile insurance policy to plaintiff. See AMI Insurance Agency v. Elie, 394 So.2d 1061, 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Affirmed.

RYDER, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.


Summaries of

Ivey v. Hull & Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 14, 1984
458 So. 2d 439 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Ivey v. Hull & Co.

Case Details

Full title:THRESSIA IVEY, APPELLANT, v. HULL COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Nov 14, 1984

Citations

458 So. 2d 439 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Ruiz v. Fortune Ins. Co.

We further reject the Ruizes' argument on appeal that Fortune is estopped from disclaiming coverage where…

RLI Insurance Co. v. Collado

The fact that Mr. Pliego was furnished blank applications and expected to receive a commission does not…