Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Contract & Bus.) 416.51

(Claimant) claims that (agent) had apparent authority to act as (principal’s) agent for the purpose(s) of (scope of the authority). To establish apparent authority, (claimant) must prove all of the following:

There has been a representation by (principal) that (agent) is [his] [her] [its] agent;

Reasonable reliance on that representation by (claimant); and

A change in position by (claimant) in reliance on that representation.

SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES

“Our law is well settled that an apparent agency exists only if each of the three elements are present: (a) a representation by the purported principal; (b) a reliance on that representation by a third party; and (c) a change in position by the third party in reliance on the representation.” Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bransford, 648 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1995).

“As to the first element, when there has been no representation of authority by the principal, no apparent or implied agency arises. The acts of the agent, standing alone, are insufficient to establish that the agent is authorized to act for the principal. Moreover, the scope of the agent’s authority is limited to what the principal has authorized the agent to do.” Stalley v. Transitional Hosps. Corp. of Tampa, Inc., 44 So. 3d 627, 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

An agent cannot establish his own authority. UATP Management, LLC v. Barnes, 320 So. 3d 851, 858-859 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).

Examples of when a representation of authority by the purported principal occurs include, but are not limited to:

1. the principal knowingly permits the agent to assume, or holds the agent out as possessing, such authority. Fla. Power & Light Co. v. McRoberts, 257 So. 3d 1023, 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018);

2. the words or actions of the principal create an appearance of an agency relationship. All Seasons Condominium Association, Inc. v. Patrician Hotel, LLC, 274 So. 3d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); and

3. the principal “allows or causes others to believe that an individual has the authority to conduct the act in question, inducing their detrimental reliance.” Thus, when a principal “knowingly tolerates or permits” the actions of the agent, he or she has made a representation of authority. Sterling Crest Ltd. v. Blue Rock Partners Realty Group, LLC, 164 So. 3d 1273, 1279 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

A third party’s reliance on the apparent authority of an agent must be reasonable. Fla. Power & Light Co. v. McRoberts, 257 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (citing Lensa Corp. v. Poinciana Gardens Ass’n, Inc., 765 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

The dismissal of a claim against the purported agent compels a dismissal of the same claim against the purported principal. Apparent agency is premised on the theory of vicarious liability. The acts of the purported agent are imputed to the purported principal. If the agent cannot be held liable, then the purported principal cannot be held liable. The rationale is there is nothing to impute. Mobil Oil v. Bransford, 648 So. 2d 119, 121 (Fla. 1995).

(Adopted June 25, 2025)