ALL X-RAY DIAG. SERV. CORP., A/A/O SUSEL MARTINEZ MOREJON
v.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE 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.
An insured cannot defend against enforcement of an insurance application or policy denial based on material omissions by claiming the agent completed blank fields without obtaining information, because the insured has a duty to learn and understand the contents of the application before signing.
[1] An omission or concealment in an insurance application may prevent recovery if it is material to the risk or hazard assumed by the insurer and the insurer would not have…
[2] A party to a written contract cannot defend against its enforcement on the ground that they signed it without reading it, absent averments of facts showing circumstances…
Previewing 2 of 3 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[s] facts showing circumstances which prevented his reading the paper, or was induced by the statements of the other parties to desist from reading it.”
Quoted from All Florida Surety Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1956), establishing the foundational principle that signatories cannot avoid contract enforcement based on failure to read absent specific circumstances.
All X-Ray Diagnostic Services, on behalf of Susel Martinez Morejon, appealed a county court judgment denying recovery under an automobile insurance po…
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.
Opinion filed January 10, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1254 Lower Tribunal No. 18-10719 SP
________________
All X-Ray Diag. Serv. Corp., a/a/o Susel Martinez Morejon,
Appellant,
vs.
United Automobile Insurance Company, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Gloria Gonzalez-Meyer, Judge. Christian Carrazana, P.A., and Christian Carrazana, for appellant. Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Nicholas Bastidas and Michael A. Rosenberg (Plantation), for appellee. Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 627.409, Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing, inter alia, that an omission or concealment made by or on behalf of an insured in an insurance application may prevent recovery under the policy if (1) the omission or concealment is material to the acceptance of the risk or to the hazard assumed by the insurer; and (2) had the true facts been known to the insurer, the insurer in good faith would not have issued the policy or would not have issued it at the same premium rate); Rodriguez v. Responsive Auto. Insur. Co., 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1557, 2023 WL 5061776 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 9, 2023) (holding insurance agent’s purported act of completing blank fields in application without obtaining information that insured drove for ride-sharing service was insufficient to overcome insured's duty to learn contents of application prior to signing it). See also All Fla. Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508, 510-11 (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[s] facts showing circumstances which prevented his reading the paper, or was induced by the statements of the other parties to desist from reading it.”). Rivero v. Rivero, 963 So. 2d 934, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (recognizing Florida courts have consistently held that “parties to a written instrument have a duty to learn and understand the contents of that instrument before signing it”) (quoting Keller v. Reed, 603 So. 2d 717, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
All X-Ray Diag. Serv. Corp. v. United Auto. Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…y the insurer; and (2) had the true facts been known to the insurer, the insurer in good faith would not have issued the policy or would not have issued it at the same premium rate); Rodriguez v. Responsive Auto. Insur. Co., 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1557, 2023 WL 5061776 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 9, 2023) (holding insurance agent’s purported act of completing blank fields in application without obtaining information that insured drove for ride-sharing service was insufficient to overcome insured's duty to learn contents of…
-
Loraine Castellon v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Rodriguez v. Responsive Auto Ins. Co., 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1557 *2, 2023 WL 5061776 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 9, 2023) (noting that under Florida’s “‘new’ summary judgment standard . . . the trial court should only deny summary judgment where there is a genuine dispute as to a ‘material fact’ and ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jur…
-
Gonzalo E. Mendez v. The Bd. of Directors of the Palace Condo. Ass'n, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- ALL Fla. Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1956)
- Kedrick Bull v. State, 603 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Stovall v. State, 963 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- All X-Ray Diag. Serv. Corp. v. United Auto. Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)