CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...The Department of Insurance as the receiver for Southern American Fire Insurance *156 Co. (Southern American) brought a complaint against Hartnett, Inc. alleging breach of contract and conversion and against Frederick B. Hartnett and William J. Hartnett, Sr. on the basis of Section 626.734, Florida Statutes (1981)....
...On these claims, the jury by special interrogatory verdict found against Hartnett, Inc. and assessed damages in the sum of $78,617.85. The plaintiff's cause of action against William J. Hartnett, Sr. and Frederick B. Hartnett was predicated on the provisions of Section 626.734, Florida Statutes (1981)....
...Because only the arguments of the individuals relate to liability, we will consider their claims first. In their motion for a new trial or remittitur and motions for a judgment in accordance with their motion for a directed verdict, William J. Hartnett and Frederick B. Hartnett argued inter alia that Section 626.734 was unconstitutional for vagueness, overbreadth and lack of due process. The trial court, in its order denying these motions, found that the statute was valid. Section 626.734 provides: Any general lines insurance agent who is an officer, director, stockholder, or employee of an incorporated general lines insurance agency shall remain personally and fully liable and accountable for any wrongful acts, miscon...
...As to the conduct proscribed, the statute states that liability will be imposed for wrongful acts, misconduct, or violations of any provisions of the insurance code. One need only review the rest of the code to determine the specific acts which would be violative of the code's provisions. Section 626.734 conveys a sufficiently definite warning to those subject to its provisions what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5886, 1993 WL 177935
...e employee where there was insufficient evidence that appellant knew or should have known of the employee’s misconduct. The department asserts that there was no requirement that it prove appellant had knowledge of his employee’s misconduct under section 626.734, Florida Statutes (1989), as it existed at the time of the alleged misconduct....
...licensee’s misconduct could be judged. While appellant was cited and later entered into a consent order with the department in regard to improper supervi *205 sion, these actions occurred after the improprieties on which the suspension was based. Section 626.734, Florida Statutes (1989), states Any general lines insurance agency who is an officer, director, stockholder, or employee on an incorporated general lines insurance agency shall remain personally and fully liable and accountable for a...
...duct of his employees. Affirmed. KAHN, J., concurring with written opinion. ZEHMER, J., dissenting with written opinion. . It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to address the retroactive applicability of ch. 90-363 § 70, Laws of Fla., which amended § 626.734 to specifically require knowledge on the part of the employer prior to suspension of license based upon an employee’s misconduct....
