PRIDE CLEAN RESTORATION INC A/A/O VIRGINIA BENITEZ
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
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.
Where insurance contract language is plain and unambiguous, the policy must be interpreted according to its plain meaning, giving effect to the policy as written.
[1] When an insurance policy's language is plain and unambiguous, courts must interpret the policy according to its plain meaning and give effect to it as written, reading th…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“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.”
The court's statement of the governing legal standard for insurance contract interpretation
Pride Clean Restoration, on behalf of Virginia Benitez, appealed a county court decision involving a property insurance contract with Citizens Propert…
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 Unambiguous Contract Language cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Washington Nat’l Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, 117 So. 3d 943, 948 (Fla. 2013) (holding: “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. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Menendez, 70 So. 3d 566, 569–70 (Fla. 2011). In construing insurance contracts, ‘courts should read each policy as a whole, endeavoring to give every provision its full meaning and operative effect.’ U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So. 2d 871, 877 (Fla. 2007).”) (quotations and citations omitted).
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)
- United States Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2007)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gilda Menendez, 70 So. 3d 566 (Fla. 2011)