ARROW PROPERTY INSURANCE ADJUSTERS, INC.
v.
PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
Extrinsic evidence cannot be admitted to interpret a contract unless the words used are unclear and create an ambiguity on the face of the contract itself.
[1] Extrinsic evidence may only be admitted to interpret contract language when the words themselves are unclear and create an ambiguity on the face of the contract; such evi…
[2] A contractual phrase is ambiguous only when it is of uncertain meaning and may be fairly understood in more ways than one.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is axiomatic that 'extrinsic evidence . . . should not be used to introduce [a contractual] ambiguity where none exists.'”
The court's primary statement of the rule governing use of extrinsic evidence in contract interpretation.
Arrow Property Insurance Adjusters, Inc. appealed a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County regarding a contractual dispute with People's Trust In…
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 Construction Against The Drafter cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See EcoVirux, LLC v. BioPledge, LLC, 357 So. 3d 182, 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“It is axiomatic that ‘extrinsic evidence . . . should not be used to introduce [a contractual] ambiguity where none exists.’”) (quotation omitted); Emergency Assocs. of Tampa, P.A. v. Sassano, 664 So. 2d 1000, 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA1995) (“It is a fundamental tenet of contract law that a ‘phrase in a contract is “ambiguous” only when it is of uncertain meaning, and may be fairly understood in more ways than one.’” Friedman v. Virginia Metal Prods. Corp., 56 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla.1952)). In the event of such an ambiguity, a trial court is authorized to admit parol evidence to explain the words used and how the contracting parties intended them to be interpreted. Joseph U. Moore, Inc. v. Howard, 534 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). However, before a trial court can consider such extrinsic evidence in interpreting a contract, the words used must be unclear such that an ambiguity exists on the face of the contract. Boat Town U.S.A., Inc. v. Mercury Marine Div. of Brunswick Corp., 364 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).”) (emphasis added); Webster v. Ocean Reef Cmty. Ass’n, Inc., 994 So. 2d 367, 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“In the case of competing interpretations of the words used in the articles of incorporation at issue here, any ambiguity is to be construed against the Association as the drafter.”) (quoting Vargas v. Schweitzer–Ramras, 878 So. 2d 415, 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (74 total)
-
Arrow Prop. Ins. Adjusters, Inc. v. People's Tr. Ins. Co., 357 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…Judge. The Diener Firm, P.A., and Erik D. Diener (Plantation), for appellant. Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Daniel J. Maher, for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See EcoVirux, LLC v. BioPledge, LLC, 357 So. 3d 182, 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“It is axiomatic that ‘extrinsic evidence . . . should not be used to introduce [a contractual] ambiguity where none exists.’”) (quotation omitted); Emergency Assocs. of Tampa, P.A. v. Sassano, 664 So. 2d 1000, 1002 (Fla…
-
Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
-
Jaar v. The Univ. OF Miami, 474 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
Previewing 3 of 74 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)
- Boat Town U. S. A., Inc. v. Mercury Marine Div. OF Brunswick Corp., 364 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Joseph U. Moore, Inc. v. Howard, 534 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Vargas v. Schweitzer-Ramras, 878 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)