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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
