PIERROT PIERRE AND SIANNELIA PIERRE
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Plain Meaning Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See, e.g., Washington Nat. Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, 117 So. 3d 943, 948 (Fla. 2013) (noting that insurance policy interpretation and construction is a question of law subject to de novo review; and reaffirming: “Where the language in an insurance contract is plain and unambiguous, a court must interpret the policy in accordance with the plain meaning so as to give effect to the policy as written”); Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR, Inc., 889 So. 2d 779, 785 (Fla. 2004) (holding that, in construing the terms of an insurance policy, courts “begin by looking to the language of the policy. If the language used in an insurance policy is plain and unambiguous, a court must interpret the policy in accordance with the plain meaning of the language used so as to give effect to the policy as it was written”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wash. Nat'l Ins. Corp. v. Sydelle Ruderman, 117 So. 3d 943 (Fla. 2013)
- Stewart v. Ingalsbe, 889 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2004)