We treat this as a petition for writ of certiorari and it is hereby denied.

concurring specialty-

I write to explain what we have done. This proceeding began as a non-final appeal by the defendant from a “[p]artial summary judgment determining liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief.” The trial court said:

This holding is limited to a determination that the corporate defendant is legally *352liable to Plaintiffs for such acts of its officer, PAUL KORNYA, as are alleged in Counts IV, VI, VIII and IX, if a jury should determine that KORNYA in fact committed these acts.

Appellant’s sole point on appeal was as follows:

An insurance agency whose officer-employee embezzles a premium, unbeknownst to the agency, is not liable for punitive damages or other penalties, because the act was outside the scope of employment.

We have concluded as the majority has indicated.