Opinion ID: 1822610
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Standard for Interpreting Insurance Contracts in Florida

Text: Under Florida law, insurance contracts are construed according to their plain meaning. Taurus Holdings, 913 So.2d at 532. If the relevant policy language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, one providing coverage and another limiting coverage, the insurance policy is considered ambiguous. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So.2d 29, 34 (Fla.2000). Ambiguities in insurance contracts are interpreted against the insurer and in favor of the insured. Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So.2d 161, 165 (Fla.2003). To allow for such a construction, however, the provision must actually be ambiguous. Taurus Holdings, 913 So.2d at 532. A provision is not ambiguous simply because it is complex or requires analysis. Swire Pac. Holdings, 845 So.2d at 165. Moreover, `if a policy provision is clear and unambiguous, it should be enforced according to its terms whether it is a basic policy provision or an exclusionary provision.' Taurus Holdings, 913 So.2d at 532 (quoting Hagen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 675 So.2d 963, 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)). With these concepts in mind, we consider the particular policy language at issue.