SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, SPLIT ON AMBIGUITY, IS APPARENTLY UNITED ON NO EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE … YET, IF EVER.
In a decision that attracted at least 3 "friend of the court" briefs, and lawyers from places as far from Florida as Washington, D.C. and New York City, as well as from Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, Miami, Plantation, Tallahassee, West Palm Beach, and Bay Harbor Islands, the Supreme Court of Florida split 4-to-3 on grounds that were much narrower than the amici wanted.
The four-Justice majority was actually even narrower than that. The Southern Third official report of this decision was just released on Westlaw. The decision provided answers to questions certified by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which received its answers in an unofficial report a while back.
Normally, Florida Supreme Court decisions are officially published in Southern Third sooner than three years after they are rendered. The fact that this decision was finally officially published after three years may reflect that someone was waiting for a vote or two to change; if so, they were disappointed.
Three Justices concurred in the majority opinion, held that the insurance policy at bar was ambiguous, and being ambiguous should be interpreted "against the insurer and in favor of coverage without resort to consideration of extrinsic evidence." Washington Nat'l Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, 117 So. 3d 943, 952 (Fla. 2013).
A fourth Justice voted with the majority's answers to the Eleventh Circuit's certified questions but only concurred in the result.
For their part, the 3 dissenting Justices remained unanimous that "[t]he insurance policy is not ambiguous." Washington Nat'l Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, 117 So. 3d 943, 952 (Fla. 2013) (Polston, C.J., dissenting).
None of the Justices voted in favor of admitting extrinsic evidence to interpret an insurance policy, whether the policy is ambiguous or not.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©by Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments