Acquesta v. Industrial Fire & Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 65356,65356 |
| Citation | 467 So.2d 284,10 Fla. L. Weekly 158 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 158 William ACQUESTA, et ux., Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL FIRE & CASUALTY CO., Respondent. |
Angelo Marino, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.
Marcia E. Levine of Fazio, Dawson & DiSalvo, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.
Robert D. Peltz of Rossman & Baumberger, Miami, amicus curiae, for Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
This is a petition to review a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal reported as Industrial Fire & Casualty Co. v. Acquesta, 448 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), in which the district court held that the Acquestas were precluded from recovering uninsured motorist benefits because the wife, in applying for automobile insurance at the direction of her husband, rejected uninsured motorist coverage. The district court certified conflict with the Third District Court of Appeal's decisions in Protective National Insurance Co. v. McCall 310 So.2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), and Weathers v. Mission Insurance Co., 258 So.2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and we approve the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in the instant case.
The facts of this case are as follows. William Acquesta sent his wife, Crystal, to purchase automobile insurance for his vehicle. She signed the application for insurance in several places, including one that rejected uninsured motorist coverage. Because the wife had signed the application, the respondent insurance company crossed out William Acquesta's name as applicant and replaced it with the wife's. A policy was subsequently issued in the wife's name. The wife asked the insurance company to put the policy in her husband's name, but did not object to the lack of uninsured motorist coverage. Before a change in name was accomplished, the wife was involved in an accident with an uninsured driver. The Acquestas sought to recover under uninsured motorist coverage, but were informed that their policy did not provide such coverage.
The Acquestas brought suit in circuit court seeking uninsured motorist coverage. Citing as authority the Weathers and McCall decisions, the court entered summary judgment for the Acquestas, holding that they were entitled to uninsured motorist coverage on the basis that the wife had rejected the uninsured motorist coverage without the consent or knowledge of her husband.
In reversing, the district court accepted the Acquestas' position that the husband should have been named as the insured, but determined that, under the law of agency, the husband had vested his wife with apparent authority to contract for the insurance and was bound by her rejection of uninsured motorist coverage. In so holding, the court stated:
William correctly expects the insurance company to be bound by the contract in all respects which are of benefit to him and the law will enforce those expectations. The insurer correctly expects William to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perkins v. Doe
...Weathers v. Mission Insurance Co., 258 So.2d 277 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1972), overruled on other grounds, Acquesta v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Co., 467 So.2d 284 (Fla.1985); Smith v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., 246 Ga. 50, 268 S.E.2d 632 (1980); Scalf v. Globe American Casualty Co., --- In......
-
Don's Sod Co., Inc. v. Department of Revenue, State of Fla.
...So.2d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Industrial Fire and Casualty v. Acquesta, 448 So.2d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), approved, 467 So.2d 284 (Fla.1985); Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Holmes v. Blazer Financial Services, Inc., 369 So.2d 987, 988 (Fla. 4th ......
-
Johnson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No. 13CA0752
...named insureds "acted with apparent authority to reject [UM/UIM] coverage on behalf of" another named insured); Acquesta v. Indus. Fire & Cas. Co., 467 So.2d 284, 285 (Fla.1985) ("[W]ife was vested by her husband with apparent authority to ... reject [UM/UIM] coverage" where she had "appare......
-
Old Amer. County Mut. Fire Ins. v. Sanchez
...response to Sanchez's motion for rehearing, Old American cites authority from other states, in particular Acquesta v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Co., 467 So.2d 284, 285 (Fla.1985), in support of its argument that the law of agency permits a spouse to reject coverage on behalf of the other s......
-
Restraining false light: constitutional and common law limits on a "troublesome tort".
...or to cause sufficient monetary injury, to generate litigation. (50.) See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 349-50. (51.) Mid-Fla. Television Corp., 467 So. 2d at 284 (Ehrlich, J., concurring). (52.) See RESTATEMENT OF TORTS [section] 613(2)(a) (1938). (53.) See id. [section] 613 cmt. h. (54.) See N.Y. Ti......