Case Name: Marvin E. WOODHAM and Pauline Woodham, Appellants, v. Raymond S. MOORE, Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-02-02
Citations: 428 So. 2d 280
Docket Number: No. 81-1983
Parties: Marvin E. WOODHAM and Pauline Woodham, Appellants, v. Raymond S. MOORE, Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, et al., Appellees.
Judges: ANSTEAD, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 428
Pages: 280–281

Head Matter:
Marvin E. WOODHAM and Pauline Woodham, Appellants, v. Raymond S. MOORE, Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, et al., Appellees.
No. 81-1983.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb. 2, 1983.
Opinion on Rehearing April 6, 1983.
Montgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney & Se-arcy, P.A., and Edna L. Caruso, West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Marjorie Gadarian Graham of Jones & Foster, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appel-lees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary final judgment exonerating an insurance agent from liability for alleged negligence in failing to advise the appellants of the availability and desirability of obtaining higher limits of liability insurance.
There is evidence in the record that the appellants had once had higher limits but were forced to obtain assigned risk coverage at lower limits because of a record of accidents. However, there is also evidence that the appellants subsequently became eligible for coverage with higher limits outside the assigned risk plan but were not so advised by the appellees. In addition, the appellees acknowledged that they had a policy of periodically reviewing the files of their clients, presumably for the purpose of noticing such situations.
Under these circumstances we believe issues of fact existed with respect to the obligation of the agent to advise the appellants of their right to leave the assigned risk plan. Luckey v. Willis Ins. Agency, Inc., 409 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We remand with some reluctance because we acknowledge that the pleadings do not precisely pinpoint this issue. Were we dealing only with the appellants' allegations that the agent had a broad duty to procure "adequate" insurance, notwithstanding the absence of any instructions to that effect from the appellants, the result might well be different. However, if the record reflects facts which may support a cause of action a claimant should be given an opportunity to amend even where the existing pleadings may be inadequate. Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, 159 So.2d 236 (Fla.1964); Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So.2d 623 (Fla.1956). We believe such a situation exists here.
Accordingly, we affirm the entry of summary judgment but remand this cause with directions that appellants be given an opportunity to amend their Third Party Complaint to attempt to state a cause of action on the issue discussed above.
ANSTEAD, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.