Opinion ID: 1735720
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standards for Interpreting Insurance Contract Language in Florida

Text: Under Florida law, insurance contracts are construed according to their plain meaning. Ambiguities are construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage. As we recently said: [W]e must follow the guiding principle that this Court has consistently applied that insurance contracts must be construed in accordance with the plain language of the policy. Further, we consider that [i]f the relevant policy language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, one providing coverage and the [other] limiting coverage, the insurance policy is considered ambiguous. An ambiguous provision is construed in favor of the insured and strictly against the drafter. Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So.2d 161, 165 (Fla.2003) (citations omitted) (quoting Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So.2d 29, 34 (Fla.2000)); see also Deni Assocs. of Fla., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 711 So.2d 1135, 1140 (Fla.1998) (noting that in Florida ambiguities are construed against the insurer). Although ambiguous provisions are construed in favor of coverage, to allow for such a construction the provision must actually be ambiguous. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Pridgen, 498 So.2d 1245, 1248 (Fla.1986), we emphasized that insurance contracts are interpreted according to the plain language of the policy except when a genuine inconsistency, uncertainty, or ambiguity in meaning remains after resort to the ordinary rules of construction. Id. at 1248 (quoting Excelsior Ins. Co. v. Pomona Park Bar & Package Store, 369 So.2d 938, 942 (Fla.1979)). We further held that courts may not rewrite contracts, add meaning that is not present, or otherwise reach results contrary to the intentions of the parties. Id. (quoting Excelsior, 369 So.2d at 942). 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. Hagen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 675 So.2d 963, 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).