ROBERTO JURADO
v.
DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a decision involving an insurance contract dispute, holding that a party cannot avoid enforcement of a written insurance policy by claiming he did not read it unless he demonstrates circumstances prevented him from reading it or he was induced by the other party not to read it.
A party to a written contract cannot defend against its enforcement on the ground that he signed it without reading it, unless he establishes facts showing circumstances that prevented his reading the paper or that he was induced by statements of the other parties to refrain from reading it.
[1] A party to a written contract cannot defend against its enforcement based on failure to read the contract unless the party demonstrates facts showing circumstances that p…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A party to a written contract cannot defend against its enforcement on the ground that he signed it without reading it, unless he aver facts showing circumstances which prevented his reading the paper, or was induced by the statements of the other parties to desist from reading it.”
Establishes the primary legal rule governing when a signatory can avoid a written contract based on failure to read
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a dispute between Roberto Jurado and Direct General Insurance Company concerning an insurance policy. Jurado apparently challenged t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insurance Application cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed November 26, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D24-2148 Lower Tribunal No. 22-9368-CA-01
Roberto Jurado, Appellant,
vs.
Direct General Insurance Company, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.
George David, P.A., and Christian Carrazana, for appellant.
McFarlane Law, and William J. McFarlane, III, and Michael K. Mittelmark (Coral Springs), for appellee.
Before MILLER, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See All Fla. Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508, 510 (Fla. 1956) ("A party to a written contract cannot defend against its enforcement on the ground that he signed it without reading it, unless he aver facts showing circumstances which prevented his reading the paper, or was induced by the statements of the other parties to desist from reading it.” (quotation omitted)); Smith v. Am. Auto. Ins. Co., 498 So. 2d 448, 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (finding insufficient evidence that insurance broker who was authorized to fill out policy application forms was apparent agent of insurer where “there was no representation made to Smith by AAIC with respect to Berwick's authority to act as its agent” and “Smith did not even know the name of the insurance company involved”); Rodriguez v. Responsive Auto. Ins. Co., 388 So. 3d 846, 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (finding that insured presented insufficient evidence to avoid insurer voiding policy due to misrepresentation where insured attested that insurer's agent incorrectly filled in blank fields on policy application for him without obtaining sufficient information, but “did not attest that he apprised the agent of the correct information or was prevented or induced to refrain from reading the application. Nor did he claim the factual inaccuracies were obscured or the agent sought to deceive the insurer").
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- ALL Fla. Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1956)
- Smith v. Am. Auto. Ins. Co., 498 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)