ROBERT TOD HOFFMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
TIMOTHY MILLER TERRY AND PATRICIA R. TERRY, APPELLEES
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.
Court affirmed jury verdict interpreting ambiguous contract provision, holding that ambiguous contract language must be submitted to jury rather than resolved by court as matter of law.
When a contract provision is reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, the ambiguity must be submitted to the jury for resolution as a fact question rather than interpreted by the court as a matter of law.
[1] When a contract provision is reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, the ambiguity must be resolved by the jury as a fact question rather than by the court…
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 intelligenceHoffman and the Terrys disputed the correct interpretation of a contract provision. Hoffman argued the language was clear and unambiguous and should b…
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 Contract Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
The issue at trial was the correct interpretation to be given the terms of a contract. Appellant contends that the language of the instrument was clear and unambiguous and should have been interpreted by the court as a matter of law. Appel-lee contends that the provision in question had a meaning inconsistent with that meaning advanced by appellant. The court submitted the cause to the jury which returned a verdict in favor of appellees. The issues on appeal are whether the court correctly submitted the question to the jury to interpret the contract and correctly denied appellant’s motion for a directed verdict.
We have examined the record, particularly the disputed contract provision, and find that the provision is, as determined by the trial court, reasonably susceptible to more than one construction. Because the provision is ambiguous, it was proper to submit the issue to the jury for resolution as a matter of fact. Friedman v. Virginia Metal Products Corp., 56 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1952); Pan American Bancshares, Inc. v. Trask, 278 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). There was no error in denying appellant’s motion for a directed verdict. See, e. g., Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1968); Bruce Construction Corp. v. The State Exchange Bank, 102 So. 2d 288 (Fla.1958); Behar v. Root, 393 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Laird v. Potter, 367 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…en it is uncertain of meaning and disputed, Friedman v. Virginia Metal Products Corp., 56 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1952), and must be determined as an issue of fact. Goldbloom v. J. I. Kislak Mortgage Co., 408 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Ellenwood v. Southern United Life Ins. Co., 373 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The trial court properly considered all the parol evidence which tended to clarify the terms of the agreement and decided the controversy as an issue…
-
Specialty Rests. Corp. v. City OF Miami, 501 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ources Recovery (Dade County) Constr. Corp., 462 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). A contract is ambiguous when its language is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, or is subject to conflicting inferences. See Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So. 2d 1184, 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Ellenwood v. S. United Life Ins. Co., 373 So. 2d 392, 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Brickenkamp, 147 So. 2d 200, 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law, to be determined…1 / 2
-
Quayside Assocs., Ltd. v. Harbour Club Villas Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 419 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…are disputed and reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, an issue of fact is presented which cannot properly be resolved by summary judgment. Goldbloom v. J. I. Kislak Mortgage Co., 408 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Ellenwood v. Southern United Life Ins. Co., 373 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Summary judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further consistent proceedings.…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Arrow Prop. Ins. Adjusters, Inc. v. People's Tr. Ins. Co., 357 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1968)
- Laird v. Potter, 367 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Bruce Constr. Corp. v. THE State Exch. Bank, 102 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1958)
- Bart M. Behar v. Root, 393 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- PAN Am. Bancshares, Inc. v. Trask, 278 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)