The assigned declare in opposition to a dealer was dismissed as untimely as a result of the underlying motion in opposition to the insurer was not closing. Mermaid Marine Holdings, LLC v. Maverick Yacht Mgmt., LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167833 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2025).
Defendant Maverick Yacht Administration,, LLC (MYM) was a yacht administration enterprise. Plaintiff Mermaid Marine Holdings, LLC and MYM entered right into a Yacht Administration Settlement for plaintiff’s vessel. MYM maintained a common legal responsibility coverage by means of Hiscox Insurance coverage Firm for its enterprise. MYM procured the coverage by means of its dealer, Stacks Brokerage Corp.
After Hurricane Ian handed, MYM workers had been navigating the plaintiff’s vessel when the vessel sustained damages. MYM was sued by plaintiff and submitted a declare to Hiscox. The declare was rejected as a result of the coverage excluded protection for bodily damage or property injury arising out of the possession, upkeep, use or entrustment to others of any watercraft.
MYM sued its agent, Stacks, for negligence in failing to obtain correct protection. MYM then assigned to plaintiff its claims, rights and different pursuits it had in opposition to Stacks for failure to obtain legal responsibility insurance coverage on behalf of MYM. Plaintiff sued Stacks for procuring a nugatory legal responsibility coverage for MYM that contained a broad watercraft exclusion. Stacks moved to dismiss arguing that plaintiff’s assigned claims had not accrued and weren’t ripe. MYM had not but been discovered liable to plaintiff for the damages to the vessel.
Florida legislation permitted an insurance coverage dealer to be held liable to 3rd events when the dealer was negligent in procuring protection for a buyer. However earlier than a 3rd celebration may search to get well in opposition to the insurance coverage dealer, the third celebration needed to first achieve success in its motion in opposition to the shopper who didn’t have ample insurance coverage. Right here, plaintiff had but to acquire a judgment or a settlement in opposition to the unique tortfeasor, MYM. Subsequently, plaintiff’s declare in opposition to MYM’s dealer was untimely. A declare in opposition to an insurance coverage dealer for negligence didn’t accrue till the underlying motion in opposition to the insurer was closing. Stacks movement to dismiss was granted.
