AMI Ins. Agency v. Elie, s. 79-961
| Decision Date | 03 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 79-961,79-1176 and 79-1747,s. 79-961 |
| Citation | 394 So.2d 1061 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | AMI INSURANCE AGENCY, Appellant, v. Lydia Lamothe ELIE and Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellees. |
Adams & Ward and Robert C. Ward and James W. Kaufman, Miami, for appellant.
Broad & Cassel and Patricia L. Lebow, Bay Harbor, for appellees.
Before HUBBART, C. J., and NESBITT, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M. Sr. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The parties will be referred to in the capacity in which they appeared in the trial court.
AMI Insurance Agency, hereinafter referred to as AMI, appeals from certain final orders determining that Industrial Fire and Casualty Company, hereinafter referred to as Industrial, was entitled to indemnification from AMI. We hold that Industrial was not entitled to indemnification because AMI, an insurance broker, was not the agent of Industrial.
The facts reflect that Industrial denied coverage under a policy it had issued to plaintiff Lydia Lamothe Elie, hereinafter referred to as Elie, on the basis that Elie, in her insurance application, had made misrepresentations of material fact in regards to the non-covered commercial use of the insured vehicle. Industrial, via a third party complaint, sought indemnification from AMI, the procuring broker.
Pursuant to a non-jury trial, the lower court entered a final judgment in favor of plaintiff, thus finding that there was coverage under the policy. That judgment has not been challenged by appeal. The court then ruled in favor of Industrial on its third party claim for indemnification. AMI appealed from those final judgments which determined that Industrial was entitled to indemnification both for benefits it had paid to Elie, as well as for attorney's fees.
We hold that the existence of an agency relationship between AMI and Industrial is a prerequisite to the imposition of the indemnification here complained of. Indemnity is a right which inures to one who discharges a duty owed by him, but which, as between himself and another, should have been discharged by the other and is allowable only where the whole fault is in the one against whom indemnity is sought. 1 This statement of the law, however, does not apply to contract indemnity. City of Jacksonville v. Franco, 361 So.2d 209 (Fla.App.1978); Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 351 So.2d 703 (Fla.1977); Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490 (Fla.1979). It is clear that an insurance agent who binds a contract of insurance, when he is not so authorized, becomes liable to indemnify the company for losses arising from that contract. Crawford v. DiMicco, 216 So.2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968).
Under the general rule, which is here applicable, an insurance broker is the agent of the insured in matters connected with the procurement of insurance. Peddy v. Pacific Employers Insurance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nu-Air Mfg. Co. v. Frank B. Hall & Co. of New York
...of the insurer. See Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Koven, 402 So.2d 1352, 1353 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); AMI Ins. Agency v. Elie, 394 So.2d 1061, 1062 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Yates, 368 So.2d 634, 636 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 351 (1979); 3 Couch ......
-
Mattews Int'l v. Biosafe Eng'g, LLC, Civil Action No. 11-269
...("Indemnification is an agreement to reimburse one who has been held liable for the amount of his loss."); AMI Ins. Agency v. Elie, 394 So.2d 1061, 1062 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1981) (same). The presumption is that an indemnification provision creates "an obligation to a third party that triggers......
-
Almerico v. RLI Ins. Co.
...the procurement of the umbrella policy. Yates. See also Ivey [v. Hull & Co., 458 So.2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)]; AMI Ins. Agency v. Elie, 394 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Therefore, the conflict in testimony concerning the application was irrelevant because the Collados were bound by his W......
-
Amstar Ins. Co. v. Cadet
...Almerico; Boulton; Great Oaks Cas. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 530 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); AMI Ins. Agency v. Elie, 394 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).4 An "insurance agent" is generally one who is contractually obligated to work for and solicit insurance on behalf of......