Court Opinion

ID: 9948132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 16:05:55.536409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:11.463877
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed March 6, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D23-0446
                     Lower Tribunal No. 21-25722 CC
                           ________________

             Quality Diagnostic Healthcare Inc., etc.,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

          The Responsive Auto Insurance Company,
                                  Appellee.

      An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lawrence
D. King, Judge.

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

      The Vaccaro Law Firm, P.A., and Charles L. Vaccaro (Davie), for
appellee.

Before LINDSEY, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. All Fla. Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508, 510–11 (Fla. 1956)

(explaining that absent fraud, material misrepresentation or the like, a

signatory “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”); Rodriguez v. Responsive Auto. Ins. Co., 48 Fla. L.

Weekly D1557, at *4 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 9, 2023) (affirming summary

judgment for insurer where insured filed materially false application but “[h]e

did not attest that he apprised the agent of the correct information or was

prevented or induced to refrain from reading the application” and concluding

that the insured’s “affidavit-based assertions, without more, were insufficient

to override [the insured’s] duty to learn the contents of the application prior

to affixing his signature”); Kendall Imports, LLC v. Diaz, 215 So. 3d 95, 101

(Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (explaining that the fact that a contracting party did not

read English “was insufficient to invalidate the documents or to constitute a

defense to them, where [that party] did not allege or testify that the firm

prevented her from reading the documents, induced her to refrain from

reading them, or prevented her from having them read to her by a reliable

person of her choice”) (citing Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v.

Benton, 467 So. 2d 311, 311, 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (“If a person cannot

read the instrument, it is as much his duty to procure some reliable person

                                      2
to read and explain it to him, before he signs it, as it would be to read it before

he signed it if he were able to do so . . . .”)); Alejano v. Hartford Accident and

Indem. Co., 378 So. 2d 104, 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (holding that insurance

company has no duty to explain coverage to an applicant “unless the

applicant asks for an explanation” and that a party who signs an instrument

“cannot deny its contents on the ground that he signed it without reading it

unless he shows facts indicating circumstances which prevented his reading

it”) (citations omitted).

                                        3