Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a claim for fraudulent inducement was for the jury to resolve where, among other facts, the plaintiffs “did not read this policy to confirm Martinez’s repre- sentations because they accepted his representations as true”
• concluding the insured had stated a valid cause of action for negligent procurement of insurance
• stating that a claim for negligent misrepresentation requires proving that “the defendant made a misrepresentation of material fact that he believed to be true but which was in fact false”
• providing that to state a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must allege the following: “(1) a misrepresentation of a material fact; (2) which the person making the misrepresentation knew to be false; (3
• stating elements of claim for negligent misrepresentation under Florida law
• reasonable reliance remained a disputed issue of fact despite contract’s disclaimer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).