The lower Court entered its summary judgment for appellee-plaintiff Von On-weller Construction Compаny, Inc., and ordered recovery of $979.50 plus costs from appellant-defendant Old Republic Insurance Company. In an earlier order the trial Court denied Old Republic’s motion to dismiss Von Onweller’s complaint and granted Von Onweller’s motion to strike Old Republic’s defense that the oral contrаct is barred by the Statute of Frauds. We reverse.
Old Republic issued a policy of insurance to Richard A. Otto and Betty C. Otto insuring their interest and the interest of First National Bank in Fort Lauderdale as first mortgagеe in property located in St. Petersburg. A fire occurred resulting
The affidavit of Mr. Gene Sexton, a casualty claims adjuster for seven years, indicated that he was familiar with custom and usage in the insurance adjusting trade and in adjusting losses and was familiar with statements made by insurance adjusters to the еffect that “if it is O.K. with the owner of the property it is O.K. with me,” in regard to repairing damaged propеrty; and that such statement is generally regarded as in fact an authorization from the insurance сompany for the repairing organization to repair the damaged property.
An insurance adjuster is a special agent for the company and his powers and authority are prima facie coextensive with the business intrusted to his care, 18 Fla.Jur., Insurance, § 360; 44 Am.Jur.2d, Insurance, § 1702, which is ascertaining and determining the amount of any claim, loss or damage payable under an insurance contract, and/or effecting settlement of such claim, loss or damage. F.S. §§ 626.0404 and 626.040S, F.S.A. The acts оf an adjuster within the apparent scope of his authority are binding on the company without nоtice to the insured of limitations on his powers. 16A Appleman Ins. L. & P., § 9369; 45 C.J.S. Insurance § 1102. See also Guarantee Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Jacobs, Fla.1952,
Von Onweller’s depositiоn reveals that he knew that the adjuster’s function is to agree to the reasonableness of thе estimate and that the owner’s function is to authorize repairs on the premises. He further testifiеd:
“A. * * * Of course, it is customary to consult with the adjuster who handles the case and if he agrees to а figure then that is what the company will pay.
Q. To the owner, of course?
A. That is right. That is anybody’s name who is on the policy, including mortgаgees.”
He also stated that the bill for the repairs was sent to Mrs. Traylor, since it was customary to send it to the owner because the check will come payable to the owner and nоt to the contractor; that Howard did not personally guarantee payment; that “Mrs. Traylor аuthorized the work as owner, which is customary, because the insurance company is not in the rеpair business and it is up to the owner of the property to authorize repairs.” Mr. Howard testified that he never advised Von Onweller whether or not he would pay him, and that the company nevеr pays the contractor directly.
There was a question of fact as to whether or not Von Onweller had notice that it was not within the scope of Howard’s authority to contract with the сonstruction company to make the repairs.
We hold that the lower Court was correct in striking Old Republic’s defense that the oral contract was in violation of the Statute of Frauds. Von Onwеller alleged a direct contract with Old Republic—
The lower Court was also correct in denying Old Reрublic’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it failed to specify the terms of the contract and failed to allege that all conditions precedent to the contract had bеen performed. A reading of the complaint reveals that it sufficiently alleged performаnce of conditions precedent and the terms of the contract. Plowden & Roberts, Inc. v. Conway, Fla.App.1966,
The summary final judgment for appel-lee is reversed and the cause remanded for further action consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.