UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVE HULL CHEVROLET, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that ambiguous terms in an insurance contract create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the parties' intent, precluding summary judgment on liability.
Universal Underwriters Insurance Company appealed a partial summary judgment granted to Steve Hull Chevrolet on liability under an insurance contract.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Question Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Universal Underwriters Insurance Company appeals a non-final order granting Steve Hull Chevrolet’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under a contract of insurance, pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), Fla.R.App.P. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The construction of a contract is ordinarily a question of law and belongs to the court provided that the terms used are unequivocal, clear, undisputed and not subject to conflicting inferences. Where the terms of the written instrument are disputed and reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, an issue of fact is presented as to the parties’ intent which cannot properly be resolved by summary judgment. Langner v. Charles A. Binger, Inc., 503 So. 2d 1362, 1363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (citation omitted).
Further, despite the presumption of correctness which attaches to a trial court order, appellate courts must view every possible inference in favor of a party against whom a summary judgment is granted. Williams v. Bevis, 509 So. 2d 1304, 1306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The moving party must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Williams. Here, it was conceded by the parties in the initial pleadings, and is amply demonstrated by the arguments presented on appeal, that the crucial exclusionary terms of the insurance contract involved herein are “disputed and reasonably susceptible to more than one construction.” Langner. Therefore, there remains a genuine issue of materia] fact regarding the parties’ intent and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on liability for the subject loss.
Reversed and remanded.
WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
Strama v. Union Fid. Life Ins. Co., 793 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ent are disputed and reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, an issue of fact is presented as to the parties’ intent which cannot properly be resolved by summary judgment.” Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Steve Hull Chevrolet, Inc., 513 So. 2d 218, 219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Summary judgment is appropriate “only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Menendez v. Palms West Condo. Ass’n, 736 So. 2d 58, 60 (Fla. 1st DC…
-
Barone v. Rogers, 930 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…where the wording of an agreement is ambiguous, its interpretation involves questions of fact, precluding summary disposition. See Ieracitano v. Shaw, 815 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Steve Hull Chevrolet, Inc., 513 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Contracts are to be construed in accordance with the intentions of the parties. PS Marinas 3 v. Marina Funding Group, Inc., 889 So. 2d 167, 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). The determination of whether there is a meeting of the minds as…
-
Phillip and Delores Floyd v. Homes Beautiful Constr. Co., 710 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…nably susceptible to two different interpretations, then an issue of fact is presented as to the parties’ intent; such an issue of fact cannot be properly resolved by a summary judgment. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Steve Hull Chevrolet, Inc., 513 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Gulfstream Bank, N.A. v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A., 438 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), and Griffin Builders Supply, Inc. v. Jones, 384 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). It is not apparent from the four comers of the relea…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. Russell R. Bevis & the Fla. Nat'l Bank, 509 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Langner v. Charles A. Binger, Inc., 503 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)