CECILIA S. PINO, ET AL.
v.
HUDSON EXCESS INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
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.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted when the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and where insurance policy language is plain and unambiguous, courts must give the language its plain meaning without applying special rules of construction.
[1] In construing insurance policies, courts must read the entire policy as a whole and give plain and unambiguous language its ordinary meaning without applying special rule…
[2] The terms 'an insured' and 'the insured' in insurance policies have distinct meanings, with 'an' meaning 'any' and 'the' meaning a specific insured.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Where the policy language is plain and unambiguous, no special rule of construction or interpretation applies, and the court should give the plain language in the contract the meaning it clearly expresses.”
Fontainebleau Florida Hotel LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 408 So. 3d 862, 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Cecilia S. Pino and others appealed a judgment on the pleadings granted in favor of Hudson Excess Insurance Company and other defendants in a Miami-Da…
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 Insurance Coverage Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 30, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-0065 Lower Tribunal No. 24-2540-CA-01
Cecilia S. Pino, et al., Appellants,
vs.
Hudson Excess Insurance Company, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.
Ver Ploeg & Marino, P.A., and Robert P. Major and Benjamin C. Hassebrock and Derrick S. Natal (Orlando), for appellants.
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP and Sarah Hafeez and Carol M. Rooney (Ft. Lauderdale); Insurance Advisors and Consultants LLC and Ronald L. Kammer; De Novo and Kathryn L. Ender, for appellees.
Before SCALES C.J., and LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Glenn v. Roberts, 95 So. 3d 271, 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted only if the moving party is clearly entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."); Fontainebleau Florida Hotel LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 408 So. 3d 862, 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“[I]n construing insurance policies, courts should read each policy as a whole, endeavoring to give every provision its full meaning.... Where the policy language is plain and unambiguous, no special rule of construction or interpretation applies, and the court should give the plain language in the contract the meaning it clearly expresses."); Aiello v. ASI Preferred Corp., 315 So. 3d 713, 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“[T]he Watercraft Exclusion and severability clause at issue in this case use the term 'an insured' rather than 'the insured.' Courts have repeatedly recognized that 'an insured' and 'the insured' are distinct and have separate meanings; 'an' means 'any' and 'the' means a specific insured." (emphasis in original)); Acceleration Nat. Serv. Corp. v. Brickell Fin. Servs. Motor Club, Inc., 541 So. 2d 738, 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding that in a contract "any' is often synonymous with 'either,' 'every,' or 'all” and ""any' is defined as '[o]ne or another without restriction or exception” (internal citations omitted)).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Acceleration Nat'l Serv. Corp. v. Brickell Fin. Servs. Motor Club, Inc., 541 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Glenn v. Roberts, 95 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Aiello v. ASI Preferred Corp., 315 So. 3d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
- Fontainebleau Fla. Hotel, LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 408 So. 3d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)