Court Opinion

ID: 9458576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:56:03.437839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:49.023861
License: Public Domain

AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur in the opinion of the Court except as to subdivision II, “No Misrepresentation,” and the conclusion reached in that regard. I, therefore, dissent from the Court’s holding that increased coverage under 2(A) of appellant’s policy of insurance was valid in this ease.
St. Paul’s representatives made it clear to the insured that the additional $100,000 of coverage would only be bound “providing we had line security.” (This, of course, referred to ADT Line Security at Fort Lauderdale and the quoted clause is excerpted from the testimony of Mr. Shore, the insured’s representative. See App. 192.)
Whether Shore informed Schuh that ADT told him there was line security is not controlling when the Getz letter of February 3 is considered. The additional risk was orally bound on February 3 and the Getz letter was not received until February 4. However, the record shows that the Getz letter was required by the insurer as verification and confirmation of the fact of ADT Line Security at Fort Lauderdale. The letter unequivocally states that such security has “definitely” been installed at Fort Lau-derdale. Thereafter, on February 9, St. Paul’s endorsement No. 9 increasing coverage by $100,000 was issued on the *323strength of the representations in Getz’ letter of February 3.
The Court’s opinion erroneously concludes that the Getz letter of February 3 is of no consequence and must be disregarded in deciding this case since coverage had been orally committed prior to receipt of the letter. But the opinion ignores the fact that the letter was sent because it was required as verification and confirmation of the fact that line security had been installed in the Fort Lauderdale store and that oral binding of the risk was conditional on the insured furnishing such a letter with definite assurance that ADT was there.
It is clear that the insured misrepresented a material fact that there was line security at Fort Lauderdale. Whether this was unintentional is of no moment since fraudulent misrepresentation is not required under Florida law to vitiate the contract. See Life Insurance Company of Virginia v. Shifflet, Fla. 1967, 201 So.2d 715.