Court Opinion

ID: 9916740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 16:02:57.364114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:52.881159
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed January 10, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1254
                     Lower Tribunal No. 18-10719 SP
                          ________________

  All X-Ray Diag. Serv. Corp., a/a/o Susel Martinez Morejon,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

            United Automobile Insurance Company,
                                  Appellee.

    An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Gloria
Gonzalez-Meyer, Judge.

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

    Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Nicholas Bastidas and Michael A.
Rosenberg (Plantation), for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See § 627.409, Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing, inter alia, that an

omission or concealment made by or on behalf of an insured in an insurance

application may prevent recovery under the policy if (1) the omission or

concealment is material to the acceptance of the risk or to the hazard

assumed by the insurer; and (2) had the true facts been known to the insurer,

the insurer in good faith would not have issued the policy or would not have

issued it at the same premium rate); Rodriguez v. Responsive Auto. Insur.

Co., 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1557, 2023 WL 5061776 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 9, 2023)

(holding insurance agent’s purported act of completing blank fields in

application without obtaining information that insured drove for ride-sharing

service was insufficient to overcome insured's duty to learn contents of

application prior to signing it). See also All Fla. Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d

508, 510-11 (Fla. 1956) (“A party to a written contract cannot defend against

its enforcement on the ground that he signed it without reading it, unless he

aver[s] facts showing circumstances which prevented his reading the paper,

or was induced by the statements of the other parties to desist from reading

it.”). Rivero v. Rivero, 963 So. 2d 934, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (recognizing

Florida courts have consistently held that “parties to a written instrument

have a duty to learn and understand the contents of that instrument before

signing it”) (quoting Keller v. Reed, 603 So. 2d 717, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)).

                                       2