New Trial Because Jury Used Policy That Provides No Coverage to Assess Damages
Post 5255
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/drG3xH2R, see the video at https://lnkd.in/d6p8e-9p and at https://lnkd.in/dgPsQ3Sn, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Brown & Brown of Florida, Inc. v. Houligan’s Pub & Club, Inc., and Ormond Wine Company, LLC, Nos. 5D2024-2352, 5D2024-2458, Florida Court of Appeals (January 2, 2026) the Court of Appeals was faced with a case of first impression that involved damages from a hurricane that hit the East Coast of Florida almost a decade ago and the extent to which an insurance broker is responsible for paying for such damages.
The jury entered a verdict in favor of the insurance broker on the insured’s claim that it was negligent in failing to procure insurance, but it found in favor of the insured on claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation.
The insurance broker does not contest it breached its duties on these two claims, only whether the damages awarded are proper.
FACTS
Brown & Brown of Florida, Inc., an insurance broker, was engaged by Houligan’s Pub & Club, Inc. and Ormond Wine Company, LLC to procure commercial property insurance for their restaurants in Ormond Beach, Florida. Agent Chris Tolland assured the insureds regarding the coverage he would secure, ultimately procuring only Lloyd’s of London policies. In October 2016, Hurricane Matthew caused significant damage to the properties due to sewage intrusion.
The claims made under the Lloyd’s policy were denied, and a court judgment confirmed no coverage for the damages. Subsequently, Houligan’s and Ormond Wine sued Brown & Brown for negligent failure to procure insurance, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation. After trial, the jury found for Brown & Brown on the negligent procurement count but against them on the breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation claims, allocating 60% negligence to Brown & Brown and 40% to the insureds, resulting in substantial monetary judgments.
LEGAL ISSUES
On appeal, Brown & Brown did not dispute the breach of fiduciary duty or the negligent misrepresentation, but challenged the damages awarded.
The central legal issue was whether the measure of damages and causation for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation claims should be governed by precedent which addressed only negligent procurement of insurance. The trial court correctly declined to apply Brown & Brown’s precedent and relied on established principles that appellate decisions are limited to their facts and holdings.
Breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation are potentially broader claims that are not necessarily bound to the existence of a specific insurance policy. Florida law recognizes separate causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation and holds that each is a distinct theory of recovery.
An insurance agent or broker who agrees or undertakes to procure certain insurance coverage owes his principal a duty to do so within a reasonable time. When the agent fails to do so, even if the agent is not to blame for the failure, he may nevertheless become liable for damages if he fails to inform his principal that the requested insurance has not been procured.
Applying this principle, a reasonable jury could find that even if the insurance the plaintiff wanted was unavailable in the marketplace, the insurance broker should have timely notified the plaintiff so that the plaintiff could consider its alternatives.
Brown & Brown persuasively pointed out that the jury’s damage award was largely based on the Lloyd’s policy, which had been held in the prior declaratory judgment litigation to not provide coverage to Houligan’s or Ormond Wine. That determination was affirmed by this Court.
As such, it was error to allow the jury to calculate damages based on a policy that this Court has said does not provide coverage. Because this error is not harmless, the appropriate remedy was to remand this matter for a retrial limited solely to damages without reliance on the Lloyd’s policy. Pre-judgment interest will also have to be recomputed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court as to all other issues.
ZALMA OPINION
An insurance agent or broker promises to provide the insured with the insurance required. Failure to do so can cause damage to the insured and allows it to sue for damages. In this case it could only sue for damages due to breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation. The trial court erred in allowing the jury to set damages based on a policy that provided no coverage to the insureds instead of limiting them to breach of fiduciary duty and/or negligent misrepresentation. New trial only on damages.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
