Roberto Jurado, Appellant, v. Direct General Insurance Company, Appellee. (2025)

Affirmed. See All Fla. Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508, 510 (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 facts showing circumstances which prevented his reading the paper, or was induced by the statements of the other parties to desist from reading it.” (quotation omitted)); Smith v. Am. Auto. Ins. Co., 498 So. 2d 448, 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (finding insufficient evidence that insurance broker who was authorized to fill out policy application forms was apparent agent of insurer where “there was no representation made to Smith by AAIC with respect to Berwick's authority to act as its agent” and “Smith did not even know the name of the insurance company involved”); Rodriguez v. Responsive Auto. Ins. Co., 388 So. 3d 846, 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (finding that insured presented insufficient evidence to avoid insurer voiding policy due to misrepresentation where insured attested that insurer's agent incorrectly filled in blank fields on policy application for him without obtaining sufficient information, but “did not attest that he apprised the agent of the correct information or was prevented or induced to refrain from reading the application. Nor did he claim the factual inaccuracies were obscured or the agent sought to deceive the insurer”).

PER CURIAM.