did not obtain Zurich’s authorization to enter into the Memorandum of Settlement reached during the April 22, 2004 mediation. DE 78, ¶ 9. By the clear terms of the policy, “No insured will, except at the insured’s own cost, voluntarily make a payment, assume an obligation, or incur any expense, other for first aid, without our consent.” Despite this admission, Frankel now argues that he was advised by Attorney Michael Kraft to go forward with the settlement, and that Zurich thus “tacitly” authorized the settlement. However, under Florida law, Mr. Kraft is an independent contractor and Zurich is not vicariously hable for actions taken by Kraft, over which Zurich had no control. See Aetna Cas. & Sr. Co. v. Protective Nat. Ins. Co. of Omaha, 631 So.2d 305, 306-307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (<HOLDING>)’ ” Here, Frankel cannot avoid the effect of
holding that where the insurer retains an attorney to represent the insured pursuant to an insurance policy the attorney acts in the capacity of an independent contractor for the insured holding that insured may recover from its insurer any attorney fees incurred in successfully attempting to force the insurer to defend an action against the insured holding that an insurer had a duty to defend the insured until it could establish that those claims were not supported by the facts holding in the context of an attorney malpractice suit an insurance company is not vicariously liable for the acts of the attorney it selects to defend the insured while the insurer selected the attorney to defend the insureds and controlled the ultimate decision to settle or defend under the policy there is nothing in the record to indicate the insurer had any control over the details of the litigation as it was being conducted by the the attorney holding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy