WILLIAM F. GRIZZELL, APPELLANT,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL, ETC., APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Cambridge Credit Counseling Corp. v. 7100 Fairway, LLC, 993 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
  …to object or disclaim it until this suit was filed five years later. “A principal may not accept the benefits of a transaction negotiated by the agent and disavow the obligations of [*91] that same transaction.” Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Sherwin, 982 So. 2d 1266, 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Based upon that principle alone, the court did not err in granting summary judgment. Affirmed. MAY, J., and BID WILL, MARTIN J., Associate Judge, concur. . Although Cambridge was incorporated with reference to Massachus…
• Travelers Commercial Ins. Co. v. Harrington, 86 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
  …and 627.727(9) suggests that, while a subsection (1) coverage election may be made "on behalf of” all persons insured under the policy, a subsection (9) non-stacking election must be made individually, in Mercury Insurance Co. of Florida v. Sherwin, 982 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), the fourth district applied agency law and upheld a non-stacking election which was made for a named insured by her husband. In Mercury Insurance the appellate court referred to the subsection (9) election without addressing the…
• GEICO Indem. Co. & GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Perez, 260 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
  …ting the jury on GEICO's agency theory that the daughter, who was listed as an additional driver on the subject policy, was the online user that electronically signed the UM rejection form on behalf of Perez. See Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Sherwin, 982 So. 2d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ("The court determined that Louis could not reject coverage where the named insured under the policy was his wife, Lisa. We reverse and hold that where the husband acted on behalf of his wife in securing the insurance polic…

Authorities Cited

• Weiss v. Dep't OF Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 677 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)