TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF ILLINOIS, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
CAROL HUTSON AND JERRY HUTSON, ETC., ET AL., 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.
Travelers Indemnity Company appeals a summary judgment requiring its insured to indemnify the Jacksonville Port Authority for claims arising from airport operations. The court reversed, finding genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding whether the claim resulted solely from the Port Authority's negligence, which would be a contractual exception to the indemnity obligation.
The court held that the contract language was unambiguous and required indemnification for claims arising from the insured's operations, but reversed the summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the claim resulted solely from the Port Authority's negligence—a question that must be submitted to the jury.
[1] Interpretation of a contract is a question of law for the court absent ambiguity.
[2] Whether an ambiguity exists in a contract is a question of law.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Absent an ambiguity, interpretation of a contract is a question of law to be decided by the court.”
Establishes the standard of review for contract interpretation—ambiguous contracts require jury resolution; unambiguous contracts are interpreted by the court as a matter of law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTravelers Indemnity issued an insurance policy to its insured containing an indemnity clause requiring the insured to indemnify the Jacksonville Port …
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 Contractual Indemnity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Travelers Indemnity Co., seeks review of a summary final judgment entered against it and in favor of appellee Jacksonville Port Authority on a contractual indemnity claim. Absent an ambiguity, interpretation of a contract is a question of law to be decided by the court. E.g., Gainesville-Alachua County Reg’l Airport Auth. v.
R. Hyden Constr., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Whether an ambiguity exists in a contract is also a question of law. E.g., Centennial Mortgage, Inc. v. SG/SC, Ltd., 772 So. 2d 564, 565-66 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
The trial court correctly concluded that the provisions of the contract between the Port Authority and Travelers’ insured are not ambiguous; and that they require Travelers’ insured to indemnify the Port Authority for any claim “in any way resulting from or arising out of, directly or indirectly,” the “operations” of, or “use or occupancy of any portion of Jacksonville International Airport” by, the insured or its “officers, [sjuboperators, employees, representatives, suppliers, invitees, customers, guests, patrons, contractors, and agents,” unless the claim resulted solely from the “negligence of officers, agents or employees of the [Port] Authority.” The trial court also correctly concluded that no genuine issue regarding any material fact existed as to whether the claim “in any way resulted] from or aros[e] out of’ the “operations” of, or “use or occupancy of any portion of Jacksonville International Airport” by, Travelers’ insured or a “[s]u-boperator[ ]” of the insured.
However, because our review of the record establishes that Travelers correctly contends that disputed issues of material fact do exist as to whether the claim resulted solely from the “negligence of officers, agents or employees of the [Port] Authority,” we are constrained to reverse, and remand for further proceedings. See, e.g., Moore v. Morns, 475 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985) (“[i]f the evidence raises any issue of material fact, if it is conflicting, if it will permit different reasonable inferences, or if it tends to prove the issues, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact to be determined by it”); Jones v. Dirs. Guild of Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“if the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the motion for summary judgment must be denied”).
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Magnum Cap., LLC v. Carter & Assocs., LLC, 905 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…e of law only.” Angell v. Don Jones Ins. Agency, Inc., 620 So. 2d 1012, 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Moreover, “[ajbsent an ambiguity, interpretation of a contract is a question of law to be decided by the court.” Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill. v. Hutson, 847 So. 2d 1113, 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Whether an ambiguity exists is also a question of law. Id. The trial court reviewed the three documents alleged to form the contract and concluded that, as a matter of law, no contract had been formed. Appellant has never…
-
Schroeder v. Peoplease Corp. & L & S Logistic Servs., Inc., 18 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…l fact as to the meaning of the language employed in the notice of denial. Summary judgment is inappropriate where the wording of a document is ambiguous and its interpretation involves questions of fact. Travelers Indent. Co. of Illinois v. Hutson, 847 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Ieracitano v. Shaw, 815 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Whether estop-pel is appropriate in this case and whether the employer took irreconcilable positions is dependent upon the meaning to be accorded the notice of denial. REV…
-
Syverson v. Jones, 10 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…sociation fees, home insurance, property taxes, closing costs, and half the mortgage payments made while Wife had exclusive use of the marital home. We review the findings of latent ambiguity de novo. See Travelers Indem. Co. of Illinois v. Hutson, 847 So. 2d 1113, 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). “Florida courts ... allow parol evidence where there is a latent ambiguity.” Landis v. Mears, 329 So. 2d 323, 325-26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). A latent ambiguity arises “where the language employed is clear and intelligible and…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Jones v. Directors Guild OF Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Centennial Mortg., Inc. v. SG/SC, Ltd., 772 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Gainesville-Alachua Cnty. Reg'l Airport Auth. v. R. Hyden Constr., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)