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.