Opinion ID: 1645406
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: ISSUE III. Negligence Claims Against an Insurance Broker

Text: We also address one of the issues raised on cross-appeal. As more fully explained, we conclude that the jury in this case should have been allowed to consider Holman and Toomey's negligence claim, a claim that is assignable under Florida law. Because the Eleventh Circuit's decision has provided us with broad latitude to address the determinative, substantive issues of Florida law, our conclusion regarding a breach of fiduciary duty claim does not end our analysis. See Toomey, 450 F.3d at 1231 (The phrasing of these two questions is not intended to limit the Florida Supreme Court's consideration of the issues involved or the manner in which it gives its answers.). In the federal district court, Holman and Toomey raised a negligence claim in addition to their breach of fiduciary duty claim. Specifically, in Count 4 of their first amended complaint (entitled NegligenceDuties Owed To and Assigned to Plaintiffs), Holman and Toomey alleged that Wachovia owed duties of care and loyalty to IMC and Plaintiffs that obligated Defendants to advise and consult with them on insurance coverage issues, the filing of claims under the policy, and the obtaining and maintenance of the coverage afforded by the policy. [4] According to Holman and Toomey, Wachovia breached these duties by agreeing on IMC's behalf to the addition of the Subject Endorsement to the Policy without advising or consulting IMC and Plaintiffs of the Subject Endorsement and its impact on pending and future employed-related litigation. However, this negligence claim never went to the jury. Instead, the federal district court granted judgment as a matter of law and dismissed the negligence claim. Toomey, 450 F.3d at 1226-27. Holman and Toomey appealed this dismissal to the Eleventh Circuit. Id. [5] After reviewing the record, it is clear that the federal district court dismissed the negligence claim as a matter of Florida law. The district court ruled that under Moss v. Appel, 718 So.2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), only the fiduciary duty claim could be presented to the jury because there was a fiduciary relationship between the insurance broker and the insured. However, Moss misstates Florida law when implying that the existence of a fiduciary relationship prevents a jury from considering both a breach of fiduciary duty claim and a negligence claim. Under Florida law, negligence claims and breach of fiduciary duty are separate causes of action. Indeed, insurance brokers will often have both a fiduciary duty to their insured-principals and a common-law duty to properly procure requested insurance coverage. See, e.g., Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co., 930 So.2d 643, 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ([W]here an insurance agent or broker undertakes to obtain insurance coverage for another person and fails to do so, he may be held liable for resulting damages to that person for breach of contract or negligence.) (quoting Klonis v. Armstrong, 436 So.2d 213, 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)), review denied, 949 So.2d 197 (Fla. 2007); Randolph v. Mitchell, 677 So.2d 976, 978 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (stating that an insurance broker owes a fiduciary duty to the insured-principal). As a result, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty can be pled in the alternative. Furthermore, under Florida law, negligence claims against an insurance broker are assignable. See, e.g., Forgione, 701 So.2d at 560 ([W]e conclude that public policy considerations do not preclude the assignment of an insured's claim for negligence against an insurance agent.), receded from on other grounds by Kaplan, 902 So.2d at 757.