EARL STEWART, JR., ET AL., PETITIONERS,

v.

RAYMOND G. INGALSBE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Citator

Cited By (43 total)

• Wash. Nat'l Ins. Corp. v. Sydelle Ruderman, 117 So. 3d 943 (Fla. 2013)
  …y language is considered to be ambiguous ... if the language ‘is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, one providing coverage and the other limiting coverage.’ ” Menendez, 70 So. 3d at 570 (quoting Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR Inc., 889 So. 2d 779, 785 (Fla.2004) (quoting Swire, 845 So. 2d at 165)). We have attempted to read the policy at issue in this case as a whole, and have endeavored to give meaning to every provision. In doing so, however, we are constrained to conclude, as did the fed…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2007)
  …, when the facts are the same, the law should be applied the same. However, where the policies and underlying facts are different, then a previous decision should not be binding. We recognized this principle in Travelers Indemnity Co. v. PCR, Inc., 889 So. 2d 779, 791 n. 13 (Fla.2004) (questioning the applicability of a previous decision’s definition of a policy term in a subsequent case where the exclusionary clauses were materially different). Accordingly, our decision in La-Marche does not control the re…
• GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Virtual Imaging Servs., Inc., 141 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2016)
  …n insurance policy is plain and unambiguous, a court must interpret the policy in accordance with the plain meaning of the language used so as to give effect to the policy as it was written.” Id. at 569-70 (quoting Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR, Inc., 889 So. 2d 779, 785 (Fla.2004)); see also U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So. 2d 871, 877 (Fla.2007) (stating that insurance contracts are construed according to their plain meaning). Further, in order for an exclusion or limitation in a policy to be enf…

Authorities Cited

• Raymond G. Ingalsbe, Raymond G. Ingalsbe, P.A. v. Stewart Agency, Inc., 869 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)