Court Opinion

ID: 9963071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 16:03:16.451898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:41.112672
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed April 24, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D23-521
                        Lower Tribunal No. 22-6262
                           ________________

                       Ramona Janet Corrales,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

               Direct General Insurance Company,
                                  Appellee.

       An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C.
Miller, Judge.

     Christian Carrazana, P.A., and Christian Carrazana, for appellant.

       McFarlane Law, McFarlane Dolan & Prince, and William J. McFarlane,
III, and Michael K. Mittelmark (Coral Springs), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Rodriguez v. Responsive Auto Ins. Co., 48 Fla. L.

Weekly D1557 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 9, 2023) (“Florida law has never excused

a party from a contract simply because it failed to read the contract terms.”

(quoting Paul Gottlieb & Co., Inc. v. Alps S. Corp., 985 So. 2d 1, 7 (Fla. 2nd

DCA 2007))); All Fla. Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508, 510-11 (Fla. 1956)

(“The courts appear to be unanimous in holding that a person who, having

the capacity and an opportunity to read a contract, is not misled as to its

contents and who sustains no confidential relationship to the other party

cannot avoid the contract on the ground of mistake if he signs it without

reading it, at least in the absence of special circumstances excusing his

failure to read it.”); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Salgado, 22 So. 3d 594, 599 (Fla.

3d DCA 2009) (“Florida law indeed gives an insurer the unilateral right to

rescind its insurance policy on the basis of misrepresentation in the

application of insurance.” (quoting Gonzalez v. Eagle Ins. Co., 948 So. 2d 1,

2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006))).

                                       2