The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
. . . . § 626.342(2) that "civil liability may be imposed upon insurers who cloak unaffiliated insurance agents . . .
. . . . § 626.342 ). . . .
. . . .” § 626.342(1), Fla. Stat.; Almerico v. RLI Ins. Co., 716 So.2d 774 (Fla.1998); Amstar Ins. Co. v. . . .
. . . amorphous nature of an insurance broker,” this Court held in Almerico “that under the provisions of section 626.342 . . . Section 626.342(3), Florida Statutes (2003), excludes surplus-lines insurers from section 626.342(2)' . . .
. . . Further, Defendants’ reliance on Florida Statute section 626.342 and Almerico v. R.L.I. Ins. . . .
. . . Almerico explained that an insurance broker may become a statutory agent for the insurer under section 626.342 . . . after the policy was cancelled estops Amstar from asserting cancellation as a defense under section 626.342 . . .
. . . rule that insurance brokers are agents of the insured rather than the insurer, but interpreted section 626.342 . . . The Almerico court observed that “[sjection 626.342(2) appears to be an insurance consumer law designed . . . The predecessor to section 626.342(2) was section 626.746(3), Florida Statutes (1977). . . .
. . . Co., 716 So.2d 774 (Fla.1998) that under section 626.342(2), Florida Statutes (1997): the furnishing . . . Section 626.342 imposes civil liability and penalties on insurance companies who furnish supplies to . . . been appointed or authorized by the insurer or such agent to act in its or his or her behalf. ... § 626.342 . . . We conclude that under the supreme court’s interpretation of section 626.342 in Almerico, Neely became . . . While we reverse under the authority of Almerico and subsection 626.342(2), we also note that the arrangement . . .
. . . For the reasons expressed below, we hold that under section 626.342(2), Florida Statutes (1989), civil . . . Section 626.342, Florida Statutes (1989) provides in pertinent part: 626.342 Furnishing supplies to unlicensed . . . Pliego complied with section 626.752, section 626.342(1) was not violated and Mr. . . . Insurance Agency did not become the appellant’s statutory agent under 626.342(2). . . . .” § 626.342(2). We must determine the meaning and effect of that language. . . .
. . . Pliego was appellant’s statutory agent pursuant to section 626.342, Florida Statutes (1989), and that . . . We additionally hold that section 626.342 does not change that result and, therefore, the appellant is . . . Pliego was the statutory agent of the appellant pursuant to section 626.342, Florida Statutes (1989), . . . Pliego complied with section 626.752, section 626.342(1) was not violated and Mr. . . . Insur-anee Agency did not become the appellant’s statutory agent under 626.342(2). . . .