Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 1st DCA 2003). Because Wife has agreed that her living with a cellmate amounts to cohabitation as that term is defined in the settlement agreement, and because driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is a voluntary act which is known to possibly result in incarceration, we cannot say that on these facts such an interpretation of the agreement leads to an absurd result. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and direct that a judgment terminating alimony be entered upon remand. FARMER, J., concurs. KLEIN, J., dissents with opinion. KLEIN, J., dissenting. The former wife’s position in the trial court was that, even though the word “cohabitation” is not ambiguous, to apply it here would produce an absurd result. James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 66 So.2d 62, 64 (Fla.1953) (<HOLDING>). Other cases applying the absurd result 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the appellate courts will not rely upon the literal meaning of a statute when such a construction would be absurd unreasonable or otherwise inappropriate (B) holding that all portions of a statute are to be read in concert as to harmonize all provisions and that construction of a statute should avoid unreasonable or absurd results (C) holding that an insurance contract should be construed as a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood it and that if the language used in the policy is reasonably susceptible to different constructions it must be given the construction most favorable to the insured (D) recognizing that a clause in an insurance policy was susceptible to a construction in favor of the insured but that such a construction would be unreasonable absurd and produce results never intended or contemplated by the parties (E) holding that courts should avoid interpretations of statutes which would produce absurd results
Output (English): holding that courts should avoid interpretations of statutes which would produce absurd results