Contra Proferentem

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

• This Document is Confidential and Filed Under Seal. Review
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2023-02-06
  The Delaware Superior Court granted Clover Health's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the individuals in question qualified as 'Insured Persons' under the Tail Policies and that the 'Claim' definition was ambiguous regarding SEC investigation subpoenas. The court
• Smith v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-11-10
  A mandatory forum selection clause in an insurance policy is enforceable if it was reasonably communicated to the insured and does not contravene public policy, even if the chosen forum's law is less favorable.
• G-New v. Endurance Am. Ins. Co.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2022-09-12
  The court held that Delaware law applies to the D&O coverage dispute, that the settlement agreement constitutes a covered loss under the policy, and that certain exclusions do not apply to prevent coverage. The court also dismissed the claim for breach of the implied covenant of
• Denied
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2022-08-15
  The court held that the "prior knowledge exclusion" in the warranty letters, incorporated into the excess insurance policies, barred coverage for the noticed matters. Consequently, the Insureds' motion for advancement of defense costs was denied, and the Insurers' motion for summ
• Commerce Assocs., LP v. Hanover Ins. Co.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2022-02-22
  The court held that Commerce Associates, LP (CALP) is an "insured" under the insurance policies issued by Hanover Insurance Company because CALP is a member of the One Commerce Center Condominium Council and was sued with respect to the conduct of the Council's business. Therefor
• Neubert Aero Corp. v. StarStone Nat'l Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-10-21
  The court held that the insured pilot failed to meet the unambiguous special conditions of the aircraft liability policy by not obtaining a multiengine rating, thus precluding coverage for the damages.
• SS&C Techs. Holdings, Inc. v. Endurance Assurance Corp.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2020-10-29
  The Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the "first-filed" doctrine did not apply due to the contemporaneous and anticipatory nature of the Connecticut action. The Court granted in part and deferred in part the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgme
• Zurich Am. Ins. Co. & Am. Guar. & Liab. Co. v. Syngenta Crop Prot., LLC
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2020-08-03
  The court held that the Tillery Letter did not constitute a "claim for damages" under the insurance policies because it lacked specificity regarding potential claimants and damages, thus it was a threat of future litigation, not a "claim made" prior to policy inception. Consequen
• Pfizer Inc. v. ARCH Ins. Co. & U.S. Specialty Ins. Co.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2019-07-23
  The Delaware Superior Court held that the "Specific Litigation Exclusion" in the D&O policies did not preclude coverage for the Morabito Action because the Garber Action and the Morabito Action were not "fundamentally identical." The court found that the alleged wrongs involved d
• WSFS Fin. Corp.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2019-05-31
  The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed claims for employee benefits and costs of work performed by employees, finding them to be excluded or not covered. Claims for costs to fund and carry fraudulent loans, auditor fees
• Arch Ins. Co. v. C.A. No. N16C-01-104 EMD CCLD David H. Murdock
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2019-05-07
  The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The court held that the settlement payments constituted 'Loss' under the policies. However, genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the insurers' claims regarding t
• Noranda Aluminum Holding Co. v. C.A. No. N17C-01-152 WCC CCLD XL Ins. Am., Inc.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2019-03-21
  The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's rulings on cross-motions for summary judgment. The court held that the sale of the insured facility did not terminate the period of liability for time element losses, and that payroll saved due to bankrup
• Karma Thornton and Connie Thornton v. Am. Fam. Life Assurance Co. of Columbus
  225 So. 3d 1012· Fla. 1st DCA· 2017-09-13
  Karma and Connie Thornton appealed a judgment denying insurance coverage under an AFLAC Specified Health Event policy. The court reversed, holding that the policy's express age limit of "under age 25" for dependent children prevails over the more restrictive age requirements in t
• Vaughn v. Stillwater Prop.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2017-06-23
  The Delaware Superior Court granted summary judgment for the insurance company, holding that insurance coverage is determined by the circumstances existing on the date of loss. The court further found that an amendment adding the plaintiff as a named insured was not retroactive t
• In re Energy Transfer Equity L.P. Unitholder Litig. Cons. C.A. No. 12197-VCG
  Del. Ch.· 2017-02-28
  The court denied cross-motions for partial summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether the issuance of convertible units constituted an impermissible distribution under the partnership agreement and whether the required Special Approval
• Kurtz v. AF & L Ins. Co.
  211 So. 3d 1115· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-02-22
  Charlotte James, through her power of attorney Kathleen Kurtz, appealed a summary judgment dismissing her breach of contract claim against AF & L Insurance Company regarding long-term care insurance benefits. The court affirmed, holding that the policy was unambiguous and that th
• IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. Camal Terry v. Robin Drive Auto
  Del. C.P.· 2016-12-07
  The Court held that the contract was void ab initio due to material ambiguities in its terms, specifically regarding the duration of the layaway and the application of payments. Consequently, the Court found that the defendant was unjustly enriched by the payments received from t
• Utilisave, LLC v. Miele
  Del. Ch.· 2015-09-17
  The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for specific performance of a confidentiality provision in an LLC operating agreement, finding it reasonably conceivable that the provision survived the termination of the defendant's membership interest and
• Company v. Est. of David L. Myers & Arlene J. Myers
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2014-04-16
  The court denied the defendants' motion to strike, finding that the argument that Arlene Myers was not a party to the contract was waived as it was not raised in the initial responsive pleading. Furthermore, even on the merits, the court found that the presence of her signature o
• Del. IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. Rodman Constr. Co., Inc.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2013-01-08
  The Delaware Superior Court awarded plaintiffs Rodman Construction Co. and Northeast Construction a total of $467,171.54 plus additional attorneys' fees, interest, and costs. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs on most of their claims, including back charges for safety fin
• Conagra Foods, Inc.
  Del.· 2011-04-28
  The appellate court reversed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the 'lot or batch provision' in the insurance policy was ambiguous. Because the provision was ambiguous and susceptible to an interpretation that expanded coverage, the insurer's duty to def
• IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. THE Mills Ltd. P'ship v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2010-11-05
  The court held that Delaware law applies to the insurance coverage dispute. It further held that settlements with underlying insurance carriers for less than policy limits "functionally exhaust" those policies, thereby triggering coverage under the excess liability policy. The co
• Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n v. Law Fabrication, LLC
  459 F. Supp. 2d 1236· M.D. Fla.· 2006-06-05
  The court held that the arbitration award should be enforced because the employer failed to demonstrate grounds for vacatur, and the union, as the prevailing party, is entitled to attorney's fees and costs.
• Law Fabrication, LLC v. Local 15 of the Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n Bd. of Trs.
  396 F. Supp. 2d 1306· M.D. Fla.· 2005-10-06
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the LMRA because the plaintiff did not allege a violation of the contract, only its invalidity, and lacked jurisdiction under ERISA as the plaintiff was an employer. The court also found that if jurisdiction existed,
• Kirk v. Metro. Life Ins.
  331 F. Supp. 2d 1361· M.D. Fla.· 2003-07-22
  The court held that the denial of disability benefits was not arbitrary and capricious because there was a rational basis for the decision, supported by objective medical evidence and conflicting physician opinions within the administrative record.
• Randy and Eileen O'Brien
  Del.· 2001-11-09
  The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's dismissal of claims for diminished vehicle value. The Court held that the "repair or replace" provisions in the insurance policies unambiguously limit the insurer's liability to the cost of restoring the vehicle to substant
• Neenan v. Carnival Corp.
  993 F. Supp. 2d 353· S.D. Fla.· 2001-01-23
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to meet the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a) and the predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3), thus denying class certification.
• Giunto v. Fla. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
  745 So. 2d 1020· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-10-13
  Randy Giunto won a jury verdict in a breach of contract case against sponsors of a hockey sweepstakes contest, but the trial court ordered a new trial. On cross-appeal, the sponsors argued they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the contest judge's decision was
• Powers v. Gov't Emps. Ins.
  979 F. Supp. 2d 417· S.D. Fla.· 1998-12-17
  The court held that while a nationwide class action was not appropriate due to variations in state law, a class action for insureds within Florida could be certified as it met all requirements of Rule 23.
• Oritani Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md. (A Md. Corp.) Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md.
  989 F.2d 635· 3d Cir.· 1993-03-16
  The court held that the "On Premises" coverage provision of the Savings and Loan Blanket Bond does not cover losses from telephone fraud where the perpetrator is not physically present on the insured's premises.
• Worldwide Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Brady
  973 F.2d 192· 3d Cir.· 1992-08-17
  The court held that an insurance policy's exclusion clause is unenforceable if its language is unclear and not easily understood by the insured, even if it complies with regulatory requirements.
• Est. of Miller v. Principal Mut. Life Ins.
  1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7425· M.D. Fla.· 1992-04-14
  The court held that the term 'commercial aircraft' in an insurance policy exclusion is not ambiguous and refers to aircraft used for compensation; therefore, the decedent was not covered by the accidental death benefit when he died in a private plane crash.
• GEICO v. Valentine Fetisoff
  958 F.2d 1137· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-20
  The court held that the insurance policy's limitation of liability provision is unambiguous and that the loss of consortium claim is subject to the 'each person' limit, not the higher 'each occurrence' limit.
• Neal & Co., Inc. v. The United States
  945 F.2d 385· Fed. Cir.· 1991-09-23
  The court held that the Claims Court had jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act and properly awarded recovery to the contractor for extra costs incurred due to bowed panels and shipping expenses.
• The Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Conn. Nat'l Bank
  916 F.2d 997· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-26
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, finding that the permanent lenders' obligation to fund the permanent loan was not excused by the borrower's default and that the appraised value for damages calculation should not be based on the foreclosu
• Emery Horvatin v. Allstate Life Ins. Co.
  848 F.2d 1012· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-10
  The court held that paraplegia resulting from a spinal cord injury does not constitute a "loss" of a foot under the Accidental Death and Dismemberment policy, as the policy requires severance of the foot itself.
• Travelers Ins. Co. v. Rogell Burchett
  841 F.2d 155· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-09
  The dissent argues that the majority's interpretation of 'severance' in an insurance policy is shortsighted and restricts individual claimant rights.
• John F. Doran, Inc. v. Oldham N.V. Corp.
  501 So. 2d 743· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-02-04
  A real estate broker sought a commission from funds paid as monthly extension fees in a property sale contract. The court held that monthly extension fees paid to the seller, not to the broker, were distinct from earnest money deposits and therefore not subject to the broker's co
• Georgianna Bush v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
  656 F.2d 231· 6th Cir.· 1981-08-12
  The court held that ambiguous contract language regarding recoupment of overpaid benefits must be construed against the insurer, preventing them from recouping past overpayments based on a retroactive Social Security award.
• Arcement v. Norman Indus., Inc.
  652 F.2d 395· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-29
  Ambiguities in insurance policies are construed against the insurer, but strained readings to find ambiguity that defeat probable intentions are disfavored. The court found no ambiguity in the policies at issue, affirming summary judgment for the insurers.
• Time Ins. Co. v. English
  391 So. 2d 768· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-12-30
  Federal worker's compensation benefits are for disability, not loss of time, and thus cannot be used to reduce disability insurance payments under the policy's 'Relation of Earnings to Insurance Clause'.
• Johnston v. Hayes
  352 So. 2d 951· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-12-13
  Johnston and Magruder, oil and gas mineral rights dealers, appealed a trial court's interpretation of a deed they prepared conveying oil and gas royalties. The deed contained conflicting descriptions—one suggesting "twenty full royalty acres" and another specifying "20/80 of 1/8t
• The Schiavone-Chase Corp. & the Schiavone-Chase Corp. v. The United States
  553 F.2d 658· Ct. Cl.· 1977-04-20
  The court held that the Government breached the contract by failing to secure expeditious customs clearance for imported equipment and by preventing the use of certain equipment already in Vietnam, but affirmed the trial court's decision regarding a separate contract for scrap re
• Varo, Inc. v. The United States
  548 F.2d 953· Ct. Cl.· 1977-01-26
  The court held that the contract was ambiguous regarding who bore the cost of first-article testing, and thus the doctrine of contra proferentem applied, preventing the government from claiming a price reduction. The court also held that a price reduction was not warranted for wa
• RAY v. Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc.
  43 Fla. Supp. 20· Escambia Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1974-06-17
  Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment against Blue Shield of Florida for coverage of oral surgery costs. The court held that Blue Shield was liable for the services because the insurance pamphlet provided to employees created a reasonable expectation of coverage, and ambiguities
• In re Instruments FOR Indus., Inc. v. United States
  496 F.2d 1157· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-28
  The court held that the 'Inspection' clause's finality of acceptance, absent latent defects or fraud, prevails over the 'Guaranty' clause's one-year notice period for non-latent defects.
• Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Citrus Enters., Inc.
  293 So. 2d 727· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-05-01
  Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company appeals a partial summary judgment holding that its garagekeepers' liability policy covered theft of Thermo-King coolers left with an insured for repair. The court affirmed, interpreting the policy's definition of 'automobile' to include 'e
• Atl. & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Odell Kominers
  456 F.2d 1146· 2d Cir.· 1972-03-13
  The court held that the law firm was entitled to 7% of the recovery, not 10%, due to ambiguity in the fee agreement drafted by the firm, but affirmed that the stevedores were responsible for local counsel fees.
• Riley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  420 F.2d 1372· 6th Cir.· 1970-01-28
  The dissenting judge would hold that the insurer's conduct, specifically its letters, raised a jury question regarding implied waiver of its right to arbitrate.
• Mullan v. The United States
  412 F.2d 1305· Ct. Cl.· 1969-07-16
  The court held that the phrase 'coincident with the cancellation' in the lease termination provision created an ambiguity, allowing for parol evidence to determine the parties' intent, and that the cancellation right was exercisable only at the time the new building was ready for