Is an employer liable for damages resulting from an employee's breach of a fiduciary duty?
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FL
Yes and no.
Anyway, the common law principle of "respondeat superior"
tells us that the master is responsible for the acts and conduct of the servant that are within the scope of the servant's delegated authority or employment. And in some cases what reasonably appears to be within the scope of employment even though not expressly delegated, that is, " apparent authority".
Example: If a bank teller is instructed to deal with individual accounts only and not those of a merchant. And the teller embezzles from a merchant's account, the employer/bank is liable regardless of the instructions.
But if the teller leases the bank's parking lot to a used car dealer, the would-be lessee would have a tough time proving the teller possessed such authority and would need to remove his inventory.
And that about sums it up.