Contra Proferentem

205 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. v. Schwartzman Packing Co.
  423 F.2d 1170· 10th Cir.· 1970-04-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting parol evidence to interpret the insurance policy and in instructing the jury to construe ambiguous terms in favor of the insured.
• Reconstr. Fin. Corp. v. Sullivan Mining Co.
  230 F.2d 247· 9th Cir.· 1956-03-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the contract language regarding reimbursement for actual out-of-pocket expenses was reasonably construed to include all expenses incurred in connection with stockpiling, and that a release of the original obligor was conditional and never accomplished.
• Garford Trucking, Inc. v. Alliance Ins. Co. of Philadelphia
  195 F.2d 381· 2d Cir.· 1952-04-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that damage to a transported load from striking an overhead bridge, even without damage to the vehicle itself, falls under the policy's 'other accident to the conveyance' clause.
• Stinson v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co.
  167 F.2d 233· D.C. Cir.· 1948-03-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the phrase "engaged in war" in an insurance policy rider, when interpreted by common speech rather than technical legal definition, means actual warfare, and thus the policy's war exclusion did not apply after the unconditional surrender of enemy forces.
• N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Fed. Nat. Bank of Shawnee
  143 F.2d 69· 10th Cir.· 1944-05-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the phrase 'attained age' in an insurance policy, under Oklahoma law, means the age reached on the last birthday, not the nearest birthday, and therefore the continued insurance did not expire before the insured's death.
• Mendota Ins. Co. v. AT Home Auto Glass, LLC
  346 So. 3d 96· Fla. 5th DCA· 2022-05-06 ·cited 3×
  An appraisal clause triggered by disagreement on 'the amount of loss' encompasses disputes over the cost of repair or replacement, not merely the extent of physical damage. A dispute over monetary value for repairs is necessarily included within a dispute over the amount of loss.
• Mendota Ins. Co. v. AT Home Auto Glass, LLC
  348 So. 3d 641· Fla. 5th DCA· 2022-05-06 ·cited 3×
  A dispute over the monetary amount necessary to repair or replace damaged property falls within the scope of an appraisal clause triggered by disagreement on "the amount of loss," even when there is no dispute about the extent of physical damage itself. The appraisal clause is pr
• Off. Depot, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins.
  734 F. Supp. 2d 1304· S.D. Fla.· 2010-10-27 ·cited 3×
  The court held that costs incurred in voluntarily responding to an SEC investigation that did not culminate in a formal complaint are not covered losses under the 'Securities Claim' definition in the insurance policy.
• Epolito v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.
  737 F. Supp. 2d 1364· M.D. Fla.· 2010-09-02 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plan's definition of 'Employer' encompassed Unitrin and its affiliates, meaning pension benefits accrued under a former owner were deductible. The court adopted Florida's contract interpretation rules and the doctrine of contra proferentem for ERISA cases.
• Nat'l Indem. Co. OF the S. v. Landscape Mgmt. Co., Inc.
  963 So. 2d 361· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-08-29 ·cited 3×
  National Indemnity appealed a declaratory judgment finding that its commercial general liability insurance policy provided coverage for a seasonal worker's injuries. The court affirmed, holding that the policy's definition of "temporary worker" was ambiguous regarding who could f
• Vickers v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.
  204 F. Supp. 2d 1326· M.D. Fla.· 2002-04-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the insurer's denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious due to a conflict of interest, and granted summary judgment for the beneficiary.
• Tigg Corp. v. DOW Corning Corp.
  962 F.2d 1119· 3d Cir.· 1992-04-29 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the judgment on liability but reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages, finding the jury instructions on damages were erroneous.
• People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Sheila Banks
  388 So. 3d 862· Fla. 3d DCA· 2023-09-13 ·cited 2×
  The deterioration of cast iron plumbing pipes qualifies as an "act of nature" under the Water Damage Exclusion endorsement, and tear-out costs are part of the water damage loss subject to the Limited Water Damage Coverage endorsement's $10,000 limit, not a separate coverage provi
• RAD Source Techs., Inc. v. Essex Ins. Co.
  902 So. 2d 264· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-05-18 ·cited 2×
  Rad Source purchased a motor truck cargo liability policy from Essex Insurance. When Rad Source was sued for damage to an irradiator unit in transit, Essex refused to defend. The court reversed summary judgment for Essex, holding that the policy language regarding Essex's duty to
• Harrison v. Aetna Life Ins.
  925 F. Supp. 744· M.D. Fla.· 1996-04-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Aetna plan's 'Mouth, Jaws And Teeth' limitation, which covers surgery to alter jaw relationships when appliance therapy alone cannot result in functional improvement, could provide coverage for the plaintiff's son's orthognathic surgery, even if not strict
• United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Waterfront NEW York Realty Corp.
  994 F.2d 105· 2d Cir.· 1993-06-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the assault and battery exclusion in the insurance policy is unambiguous and encompasses claims arising from rape, thus precluding coverage.
• McMILLAN v. State Mut. Life Assurance Co. of Am. Appeal of Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  922 F.2d 1073· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the employee was not acting within the scope of her employer's business when injured.
• Westchester Resco Co., L.P. v. NEW England Reinsurance Corp.
  818 F.2d 2· 2d Cir.· 1987-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that New England's attempted cancellation of the insurance policy was ineffective because the term 'policy period' in the cancellation clause was ambiguous and, under New York law, must be construed against the insurer.
• Reliable Life Ins. Co. v. Trimble
  502 So. 2d 1303· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-02-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the military exclusion clause in the insurance policy was a 'result' clause, requiring the death to be causally related to military service for the exclusion to apply.
• Burns v. Rockford Life Ins. Co.
  740 F.2d 542· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an insurance agent's failure to mention a policy rider's 60-day waiting period was not actionable, and the company was not estopped from enforcing the rider's conditions.
• Clearwater Forest Indus., Inc. v. The United States
  650 F.2d 233· Ct. Cl.· 1981-05-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Forest Service's estimates for timber volume and road construction costs were not warranties, and the contract terms governed the parties' obligations and recovery.
• Elden v. The United States
  617 F.2d 254· Ct. Cl.· 1980-03-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government did not exceed its rights under the lease by flooding the premises for flood control purposes, and that the lease termination for nonpayment of rent was valid.
• Lerer Realty Corp. & Apex Supply Co. v. MFB Mut. Ins. Co.
  474 F.2d 410· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the policy's "Repair or Replace" endorsement requires actual repair or replacement to recover replacement cost; otherwise, recovery is limited to actual cash value.
• IHC, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.
  451 F.2d 758· 10th Cir.· 1971-11-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that property is not 'covered' by an insurance policy for purposes of an exclusionary clause when the insurer has a complete defense to liability due to a breach of a promissory warranty.
• Nixon v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  255 So. 2d 277· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-11-19 ·cited 2×
  Plaintiff Nixon appealed an adverse judgment in a non-jury trial where the trial court denied him insurance coverage under a liability policy. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the policy language was clear and unambiguous and therefore did not require construction in Ni
• George A. Koteen Assocs., Inc. v. Fulton Indus., Inc.
  438 F.2d 625· 2d Cir.· 1971-02-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the contract's term 'rate reductions' encompassed savings from operational changes, not just per-unit price decreases, and that the contract was not void as against public policy.
• Langdon v. Md. Cas. Co.
  357 F.2d 819· D.C. Cir.· 1966-01-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurer's notice of cancellation was invalid because the phrase 'exercise its right to cancel' refers to the effective date of termination, not the mailing date, and thus the cancellation occurred after the 60-day period without cause.
• Scaduto v. Orlando
  340 F.2d 293· 2d Cir.· 1965-01-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the subcontract incorporated by reference certain specifications of the prime contract related to rock excavation and removal, and that Orlando's withholding of payments based on creditor claims was not justified under the subcontract's indemnity clause.
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Town OF Grants
  295 F.2d 760· 10th Cir.· 1961-10-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the phrase 'Grants, New Mexico' in the insurance policy referred to the general vicinity, not strictly the corporate limits, thus extending coverage to the ice plant.
• Newfoundland Am. Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Suesz
  289 F.2d 694· 10th Cir.· 1961-04-19 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge holds that the insurance policy's exclusionary clause is not rendered meaningless by the typewritten endorsement, finding no ambiguity regarding coverage while the circus was in winter quarters.
• United States v. Eagle Star INS. Co.
  201 F.2d 764· 9th Cir.· 1953-01-30 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion incorrectly found ambiguity in an insurance contract's plain language, contrary to Washington law.
• Marshall v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc.
  116 F.2d 901· 6th Cir.· 1941-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the commencement of total and permanent disability should be determined by the actual date of the disabling event, not three months thereafter as presumed by the policy.
• Roskovensky v. Sanibel Captiva Island Vacation Rentals, LLC
  2020 WL 13228407· M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the invoice created an unambiguous license for all pre-existing images and that the patent ambiguity in the license duration must be construed against the drafter, extending the license for six months.
• Churchville v. Gacs Inc.
  973 So. 2d 1212· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-01-23 ·cited 1×
  The Churchvilles appealed a summary judgment dismissing their tort claim against GACS, arguing that a workers' compensation settlement release was ambiguous regarding whether GACS, as a sister company of their former employer, was covered. The court affirmed, holding that the ter
• Freling v. Reliance Standard Life Ins.
  315 F. Supp. 2d 1277· S.D. Fla.· 2004-02-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the insurer's interpretation of 'regular occupation' was not reasonable because it failed to consider the specific nature of the insured's actual occupation as practiced, instead relying solely on broad Dictionary of Occupational Titles definitions.
• Stegall v. Little Johnson Assocs., Ltd.
  996 F.2d 1043· 10th Cir.· 1993-06-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the term "master drainage plan" in the contract was ambiguous and that the defendants did not breach the contract or commit fraud by providing a site-specific plan that was acceptable to the county at the time of the agreement.
• Polychron v. Crum & Forster Ins. Cos.
  916 F.2d 461· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-11 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a grand jury subpoena and investigation constituted a 'claim' under the insurance policy, and legal expenses incurred in defense of such investigation were a covered 'loss'.
• Cheriese Johnson v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.
  11th Cir.· 2025-11-21
  The court held that an insurance company's interpretation of a preexisting condition clause, which denied benefits for a disability based on treatment for symptoms not inconsistent with the condition (but not the condition itself), was unreasonable and arbitrary.
• Holzbaur v. Trolley Square Hospitality, LLC
  Del. Ch.· 2025-06-04
  The Court held that the plaintiff was a noncash contributing member under the LLC agreement. Because the agreement was ambiguous, the court considered extrinsic evidence, which overwhelmingly indicated the parties intended for the plaintiff to contribute sweat equity, not cash. T
• Ginsberg
  Del.· 2024-10-29
  The Delaware Supreme Court held that the Delaware Insurance Code provisions regarding uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for multiple vehicles in the same household are enabling, not prohibitory. The court further held that where policy provisions conflict, creating ambigui
• Howard Ave. Station, LLC v. The Dubliner, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-30
  The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment, holding that the HAS Lease was ambiguous and that the bankruptcy court's factual finding that the parties did not intend to include the disputed area was not clearly erroneous.
• Ortiz v. Kane
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-30
  The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment, holding that the HAS Lease was ambiguous and that the bankruptcy court's factual finding that the parties did not intend to include the disputed area in the lease was not clearly erroneous.
• Schatzman v. Modern Controls, Inc.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2024-09-20
  The Court granted the motion to dismiss Counts I (Breach of Contract), II (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing as to Employment Contract), V (Conversion), and VI (Declaratory Judgment). The Court denied the motion to dismiss Counts III (Breach of Implied Cov
• D.S. Eakins Const. Corp v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-01-09
  The court held that the Errors or Unintentional Omissions provision did not apply to the leased wheel loader because it was already covered under a different policy category, and that the Debris Removal provision did not cover the removal of the concrete structure as it was not '
• Tex. Pac. Land Corp. v. Horizon Kinetics LLC
  Del. Ch.· 2023-12-01
  The Delaware Court of Chancery held that the defendants breached their voting commitment under the stockholders agreement by voting against a proposal to increase the company's authorized shares. The court found that the exceptions to the voting commitment did not apply and that
• State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Joretha M. James
  374 So. 3d 934· Fla. 5th DCA· 2023-12-01
  A policyholder "incurs" tear-out costs under a homeowners insurance policy when she becomes liable for the expense by entering a reasonable repair contract, without requiring the contract to be non-voidable or requiring the policyholder to actually expend funds beforehand. An ins
• THE Band's Visit Nat'l Tour LLC v. State of Del.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2023-11-29
  The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the insurer, holding that the touring productions failed to demonstrate "direct physical loss or damage" to their property as required by their insurance policies. The court found that the COVID-19 pandemic and resulti
• Am Crespi Miami, LLC v. Century Sur. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-10-09
  The court held that the Amendatory Endorsement unambiguously applies to the plaintiff's claim, limiting recovery to $5,000 per building, regardless of the origin of the water damage.
• Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Syngenta Crop Prot. LLC
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2023-03-28
  The court held that Syngenta's responses to the insurance renewal application did not constitute material misrepresentations or omissions. Therefore, the insurers' request for declaratory judgment that these alleged misrepresentations prevent recovery, as well as their claims for
• ALL Year Cooling & Heating, Inc. v. Burkett Props., Inc.
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2023-02-15
  The appellate court reversed a lower court's judgment against an air conditioning contractor, finding that the contract did not require the contractor to bring existing, functioning air conditioning systems up to code. The court emphasized interpreting the contract as a whole.