RAMASH REALTY, LLC
v.
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, ETC.
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.
Ramash Realty appealed a summary judgment in favor of insurance underwriters regarding the proper construction of deductible provisions in an insurance policy. The Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's interpretation, holding that the policy language was plain and unambiguous and should be applied according to its ordinary meaning.
The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, holding that the trial court properly construed and applied the relevant terms of the policy. The court determined the policy language was plain and unambiguous and must be interpreted according to its plain meaning.
[1] A de novo standard of review applies to a trial court's ruling on summary judgment based upon the interpretation of an insurance contract.
[2] 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…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“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.”
Establishes the fundamental rule for interpreting plain insurance policy language
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRamash Realty and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London disputed the proper construction of provisions in an insurance policy regarding calculation a…
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.
Opinion filed April 3, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-2107 Lower Tribunal No. 20-9667
________________
Ramash Realty, LLC,
Appellant,
vs.
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gina Beovides, Judge. Mintz Truppman, P.A., and Timothy H. Crutchfield, for appellant. TorresVictor, and Anna D. Torres (West Palm Beach), for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and MILLER, JJ. EMAS, J. Ramash Realty, LLC appeals the trial court’s final summary judgment entered in favor of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London. The dispute between the parties centered on the proper construction of certain provisions of an insurance policy regarding calculation and application of the deductible amount. Upon our de novo review, Chandler v. Geico Indem. Co., 78 So. 3d 1293, 1296 (Fla. 2011) (“The issue in this case stems from a trial court's ruling on summary judgment based upon the interpretation of an insurance contract which causes our standard of review to be de novo.”), we affirm entry of summary judgment and hold the trial court properly construed and applied the relevant terms of the policy. See Travelers Indem. Co., v. PCR Inc., 889 So. 2d 779, 785 (Fla. 2004) (“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.”); Pride Clean Restoration Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 331 So. 3d 841, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (reaffirming that “when analyzing an insurance contract, it is necessary to examine the contract in its context and as a whole, and to avoid simply concentrating on certain limited provisions to the exclusion of the totality of others.” (quoting Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So. 2d 161, 165 (Fla. 2003))). See also Royale Green Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., No. 07-21404-CIV, 2008 WL 2074383, at *3 (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2008) (“The policy is not particularly simple, but requiring analysis to determine the scope and meaning of the contract does not mean an ambiguity exists.” (citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 639 So. 2d 63, 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“The fact that an insurance policy requires analysis to comprehend its scope does not mean it is ambiguous.” (citation omitted)))).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2003)
- Rethell Byrd Chandler v. GEICO Indem. Co., 78 So. 3d 1293 (Fla. 2011)
- Stewart v. Ingalsbe, 889 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2004)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Metro. Dade Cnty. & Leonard Elias, 639 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Pride Clean Restoration Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 331 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)