CEM ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A SUNSHINE PAINTING, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, 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.
CEM Enterprises appealed a summary judgment in favor of the Florida Department of Transportation, arguing that disputed contract provisions precluded summary judgment. The appellate court reversed, finding that certain contract terms were reasonably susceptible to multiple interpretations, creating a genuine issue of material fact.
The court held that summary judgment was improper because certain provisions in the parties' contract were disputed and reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the parties' intent. When each side ascribes a different meaning to contract language, the contract is ambiguous and summary judgment is inappropriate.
[1] Summary judgment is inappropriate when the terms of a written instrument are disputed and reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, as this presents an issue…
[2] A genuine issue of material fact as to the interpretation that the parties gave an ambiguous contract provision precludes summary judgment.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Summary judgment is appropriate only in situations where there is no genuine issue of material fact and where the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCEM Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Sunshine Painting and the Florida Department of Transportation entered into a contract containing provisions that were sub…
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 Ambiguity In Contract Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, CEM Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Sunshine Painting, appeals the trial court’s summary judgment order and final judgment entered in favor of appellee, the Florida Department of Transportation. Summary judgment is appropriate only in situations where there is no genuine issue of material fact and where the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Strama v. Union Fid. Life Ins. Co., 793 So. 2d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (citation omitted). “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.” Id. (quoting Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Steve Hull Chevrolet, Inc., 513 So. 2d 218, 219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)).
Because certain provisions in the parties’ contract are disputed and are reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, an issue of fact remains in the instant case. As such, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment. See Strama, 793 So. 2d at 1132 (“When ‘there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the interpretation that the parties gave the ambiguous contract provision,’ summary judgment is inappropriate.”) (quoting Hancock v. Brumer, Cohen, Logan, Kandell & Kaufman, 580 So. 2d 782, 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)); see also Birwelco-Montenay, Inc. v. Infilco Degremont, Inc., 827 So. 2d 255, 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding that where each side ascribes a different meaning to what the sides claim is the unambiguous language in a contract, the contract is ambiguous and summary judgment is improper).
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.
BARFIELD, BROWNING and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strama v. Union Fid. Life Ins. Co., 793 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Steve Hull Chevrolet, Inc., 513 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Lenett v. World Vacation Travel, 827 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Iqbal Zabrani v. State, 580 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)