FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT APRI L18, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ _ N o. 03- 1609 6

____ ____ ____ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 01 00 1- CV-ORL-1 8- JGG BENJAM IN ALEXAN DER COLA, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMP ANY, an Ill in oi s co rp or at io n, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMP ANY, ALLSTATE FLORIDIAN INSURANCE COM PANY, ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMP ANY, ALLSTATE CORPORATION, a Del aware co rp or at io n, EDWARD M. LIDDY, in hi s capa ci ty as pr es id en t, chairm an and chief exec utive officer of T he Allstate C orporation and Allstate In su ran ce Co m

pa ny, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ( Apr il 18, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , P RY O R and H IL L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: Be nj am in C ola

appe al s th e dis m iss al of

his se co nd am en de d c om pla int al le gin g th at

A lls ta te I nsur an ce Co m

pany f ra udul en tly ind uc ed him to en te r int o a busi ne ss r el at ion shi p w ithit in w hic h he los t hi s in ve stm en t, and tha t A lls ta te failed to properly

com pensate him

for his work a s an em

ploy ee. T he district court dis m iss ed the c om pla int f or f ai lur e to s ta te ac la im

upo n w hic h r el ie f co uld

be g r an t e d . F o r

th e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s , w e a f

f i rm. I. InF eb ru ar

y of 200 0, Be nj am in C ola , ali ce nse d r ea l e state br oke r an d insurance agent with, according to his b rief, “ vast insu rance knowledge,” e ntered int o an E xc lus ive A ge nc y E m plo ym en t A gr ee m en t ( the “ ag re em en t" ) w ithA lls ta te In sur an ce Co m

pany ( “ A lls ta te ”) . U nde r the a gr ee m en t, Co laa gr ee d to ope n hi s o w n A l l s t a t e i n s u r a n c e a g e n c y f o r ap e r i o d o f e i g h t e e n mo n th s , a f

t e r w h i c h t i me A lls ta te a gr ee d to c onsi de r Co laf or it s E xc lus ive A ge nt i nde pe nde nt c ontra ct or pr og ram . U nde r the te rm s of

the a gr ee m en t, A lls ta te “ de te rm ine d[ d] in its sol e d i s c r e t i o n a l l mat t e r s r e l a t i n g t o i t s b u s i n e s s an dth e o p e r a t i o n o f th e C o mp an y, inc lud ing . . . [ t] he a cc ep tanc e or r ej ec tio n of

any appl ic at ion. . . [ an d] [ t] he lim itatio n, r es tr ic tio n, or

dis co nti nuanc e of

the w ri tin g or

se lli ng o f any

pol ic ie s,Cola’s complaint was f iled in state court, but Allstate re moved the ca se to the district 1 court ba sed upon diversity jurisdiction. 3 co ve ra ge s, li ne s, or

kin ds o f ins ur an ce or

oth er c om pany bus ine ss . . . . ” T he agreem ent also contained a clause providi ng that it “ supersedes any prior oral statem ents and representations bythe Com pany to y ou and any

prior w ritten state m en ts and r ep re se ntatio ns b y the Co m pany to y ou i n le tte r, m anua ls, boo kle ts, m em or an da , or a ny oth er fo rm at .” A t the e nd o f the e igh te enm onth pe ri od, A lls ta te did not of fe r Co lathe oppo rt uni ty to be co m e anind ep en de nt c ontra ct or be ca use he f ai le d to m ee t i ts required revenue goals for the e ighteen-m onth period. C ola alleges that his failure t o m ee tth es e g o al s wa s th e r es u l to f at o t al l y u n ex p ec t edch an g e i n Al l s t at e’s unde rwri tin g pr ac tic es ( the use of c re dit a s ac om pone nt o f its und er

w ri tin g practices) that m ade selling its p roduct m uch m ore difficult. Cola claim s that A lls ta te ’ s f

ai lur e to i nf

orm him pr ior to his e nte ri ng i nto the a gr ee m en t tha t i t w oul d c hange it s un de rwri tin g po lic ie s inthi s w ay am ount ed

to fr au dul en t indu cem ent. Furtherm ore, to the extent that he was an em ploy ee, Cola claim s that A lls ta te sho uld

have r ei m

bur se d hi m

f or his inv es tm en t and the ove rt im e hour s he
w orke d duri ng the e igh te enm onths h e w as e m plo y ed by it . 1Cola’s Notice of Appea l, filed on Novembe r 25, 2003, cha lleng es only the district 2 c ourt ’s Oc tob e r 2 7, 20 03 Or de r d ism iss ingthe se c on d ame nd e d c omp la int . 4 T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed Co la ’ s se co nd am en de d c om pla int f or f ai lur e to 2 state ac la im . F ed . R. Ci v. P . 12( b) (6 ). W e re vie wsuc h adis m iss al de nov o. Sos a v. Ch ase M

anha tta n M

ort . Co rp. , 34 8 F .3d97 9, 9 83 (11 Cir . 20 03 ). th II. Cola’ s fraud claim

against Allstate is essentially that it fraudulently

induced him to en te r int o abus ine ss r el at ion shi p w ithit by om itt ing c er

ta in m at er ia l f

ac ts ab out that r el at ion shi p – n am el y , that i t i nte nde d to c hange it s un de rwri tin g pr ac tic es to re qui re c re dit r ep orts o n po te nti al ins ur ed s. T o st at e a cl ai m f or f ra ud in th e in du cem en t b y

om is si on , Col a m

us t al le ge , int er

ali a , that A lls ta te ha d a du ty to d is cl os e to hi m

th atitin te nd edto ch an ge it s u nd erwri ti ng pra ct ic es . Gutter v. W

unker , 631 So.2d 1117, 1118 -19 (Fla. 4 DC A 1994). At ora l th
ar gum en t, Co lac onc ed ed that A lls ta te w as e nti tle d to c hange it s un de rwri tin g pr ac tic es a t any

ti m e, but m ai nta ine d th at

it ha d aduty

of “ fa ir ne ss” upo n w hic h he re lie d to dis cl ose to him

that i t i nte nde d to do s o. E ve n a ssum ing that A lls ta te kne wa t the ti m e it en te re d in to the a gr ee m en t w ithCo lathat i t i nte nde d to c hange it s un de rwri tin g po lic ie s, w e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t C ola

ha s f ai le d to a lle ge that A lls ta te ha d any duty to dis cl ose5

this fact to him . Under F lorida law, a duty to disclos e such a fa ct arises only when th e p art ie s ar e in a fi du ci ary rel at io ns hi p. F rie dm an v . A m er ic an G uardian W arra nty Services, Inc. , 837 So. 2d 11 65, 1166 (Fla. 4 DC A 2003). Cola does th not pl ead any

fac ts in his com

plaint th at w ouldallow the court to conclude that suc h ar el at ion shi p e xis te d be tw ee n C ola and A lls ta te . O n th e co ntr ar y , Co la al le ge s f ac ts that l ea d th e co urt t o c onc lud e that the part ie s w er e in an arm s- le ngth busi ne ss r el at ion shi p, and tha t C ola ’ s bu sin es s e xpe ri en ce sho uld have a le rt ed

him to tha t f ac t. Nor does Cola a llege fac ts from which the court m ight con clude that A lls ta te und er

too k to m ak e al l m at er ia l di sc los ur es , the re by a ssum ing suc h a fiduciary duty to Cola. The f

acts as alleged by

Cola re veal that the parties agree d to a certain busi ness relationshi p, and that Cola, an experienced insurance broker, had no reason to assu m e that A llstate had any special duty

to reveal its future
u n d e rw r i t i n g p l a n s , i f

an y, t o h i m. Under these c ircum stances, C ola was not j ustified in exp ecting any special tr eatm en t f

ro m A lls ta te and w as f

re e to t ak e the ir

de al or le av e it. H is d ec isi on t o t ak e i tca n n o tb e u n d o n e b y a r ee v al u at i o n o f h i s p ro s p ec t s o n ce Al l s t at e’s un de rwri ti ng po li ci es ch an ge d. Se e F rie dm an, 837 So. 2d at 1166 (“ The am ended co m pla int doe s no t a lle ge ar el at ion shi p of tr ust . . . , the re fo re it

doe s no t pr ope rl y6

allege fr aud by

concealm ent”). N or w as it r ea sona ble f or Co lato re ly

upo n A lls ta te ’ s se nse of

f ai rn es s, if any , to disclose any

thoug hts it m ay

have had in February

2000 regar ding changes in i ts unde rwri tin g po lic ie s. C ola e xpr es sly

a gr ee d in his c ontra ct

ua l a gr ee m en t with A llstate that it had the right to m ake such changes at any tim e. Moreover, at the tim e of the agre em ent, Cola signed a notice that specifically acknowledged that A lls ta te c oul d m ak e unde rwri tin g c hange s a t any ti m e, and tha t hi s

“ [p] roduction and expenses m ay be aff ected” by such changes. Cola, an expe ri en ce d in sur an ce sa le sm an , thu s w as on n oti ce that A lls ta te c oul d c hange it s unde rwri tin g, pr ic ing , or

se le ct ionc ri te ri a at

any ti m e, in the c om

pany ’ s so le dis cr et ionand tha t su chc hange s m igh t a dve rs el y a ff ec t hi s a bil ity to se ll its pol ic ie s. H av ing f

ull dis cl osur e of

A lls ta te ’ s a

bil ity to m ak e the se c hange s, Co la can no t s ta te a cl ai m

forfrau d b as edon th e al le ga ti on th atsu ch ch an ge s o ccu rred . Se e H illcr es t Pac ifi c Co rp. v . Yam am ura , 727 So. 2d 10 53, 1056 (Fla. 4 DC A th 1999 ) (dism issin g fraud claim s because plaintiff could not rea sonablyhave relied on representations in li ght of express contract language). A cc or din gly , w e m

ust a gr ee w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t C ola doe s no t a lle ge fa ct s th at sup port a c onc lus ionthat A lls ta te w as und er an ob lig at ionto te ll him

of any im pendin g change in its u nderwr iting policies, or that he re asonablyrelied7

uponany suc h du ty . T he re fo re , thi s c la im w as pr ope rl y

dis m iss ed . A s to Co la ’ s r em ai nin g c la im that A lls ta te f

ai le d to r ei m

bur se him f or expe nse s in curr ed

and o ve rt im e w ork, the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed it f or f ai lur e to al le ge any

ba sis f or thi s c la im . C ola

doe s no t a lle ge any

statut e or oth er f ed er al or state lawthat w oul d e nti tle him to suc h r ei m

bur se m en t. A cc or din gly , thi s c la im
w as a lso c or

re ct ly dis m iss ed . III . Co la ’ s se co nd am en de d c om pla int w as pr ope rl y

dis m iss ed

be ca use it f ai ls t o state ac la im

upo n w hic h r el ie f m igh t be gr an te d. A cc or din gly , the dis m iss al of the c om pla int is AFFIRMED.